NEW WRIT

Ordered,
	That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant for the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Haltemprice and Howden in the room of the Right Honourable David Michael Davis, who since his election for the said County Constituency has accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham in the County of Buckingham.— [Mr. McLoughlin.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

London Local Authorities (Shopping Bags) Bill  (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Thursday 26 June.

Manchester City Council Bill  [Lords]  (By Order )

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading (12 June).
	 Debate to be resumed on Thursday 26 June.

Bournemouth Borough Council Bill  [Lords] (By Order)
	 — 
	Canterbury City Council Bill  (By Order)
	 — 
	Leeds City Council Bill  (By Order)
	 — 
	Nottingham City Council Bill  (By Order)
	 — 
	Reading Borough Council Bill  (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Sec ond time on Thursday 26 June.

Oral Answers to Questions

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Church Buildings

Ben Chapman: What factors the Church Commissioners take into account in deciding on the preservation of church buildings.

Stuart Bell: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. May I, with your permission, congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Sir Peter Viggers) on his knighthood? Since this is Church Commissioners Question Time, I almost said, "priesthood". He has been a colleague of mine in this House for many years. We have had adjacent offices, and from time to time, sparing the blushes of the Whips Office, we have paired together. His elevation is well deserved and worthy of him and this House. He has the singular distinction of having come into the House in February 1974 with my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), so they share that particular election.
	Where a suitable alternative use cannot be found for a church that has closed for worship, the commissioners determine its future having consulted the Church Buildings Council about its qualities. In considering the possibility of preservation by the Churches Conservation Trust, the commissioners take into account the trust's ability to meet the repair and maintenance cost, other sources of funding, and competing claims for vesting in the trust.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Ben Chapman) takes a big interest in his own constituency affairs, I am sure that he will be interested to know that St. Mary's, Thornton-le-Moors is a grade I listed church near Stanwell oil refinery that was declared redundant in 2002. Lengthy negotiations for a possible alternative use did not bear fruit, and I expect that the commissioners will consider preservation in the near future.

Ben Chapman: In considering the future use of redundant church buildings, what consultation takes place with local communities? In particular, what consideration is given to the building's potential in the context of faith tourism?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for returning to the theme of faith tourism, which is very important for the Church. He would wish to know that the commissioners' involvement in any preservation matter begins once a decision has been taken to close a particular church of worship. Since 1969, the future of 1,741 redundant churches has been decided under the pastoral measure. Alternative uses have been found for 1,007, while 352 have been preserved and 382 have been demolished. Preservation and faith tourism are extremely important, and how we can link them together as part of our English heritage is a matter of some concern to the Church.

David Drew: My hon. Friend will know that there are at least three proposals to consider how the Church of England could receive a massive boost to bring their buildings up to scratch for all the reasons he has just set out. Will he explain what is happening and tell us of any deliberations he has had with Ministers on how we can provide this massive investment, which, as he knows more than me, is sadly needed?

Stuart Bell: My hon. Friend raises an important point about the relationship between Church and state. It is not generally known that the state does not help us by financing the preservation of churches, although we work closely with English Heritage, from which we receive funds. There is a great concern in the Church that funds might be diverted from the heritage fund to the Olympic games, which would not assist in the preservation of churches. I will be happy to write to my hon. Friend on the specific matters to which he refers, and put a copy of my letter to him in the Library.

Nicholas Winterton: My question is not about a church that is closing—quite the opposite. My question is about St. Peter's church in the village of Prestbury, just outside Macclesfield, which is a flourishing and highly popular church. It is a valuable listed building, but there is a huge debate in the village about the proposal to extend the exterior of the church, rather than alter it inside. Can the hon. Gentleman indicate what factors the Church Commissioners would take into account to allow this substantial alteration to a beautiful church that is much valued? There is great debate in the village. I am not taking sides—that is not my business—but I want to know which factors are taken into account.

Stuart Bell: That looks like a planning matter for the local community, but there are several aspects to what the hon. Gentleman says. First, it is a beautiful church; secondly, it is well attended; and thirdly, there is the question whether it should expand from within or without. The gospel has already expanded from without, which is why it has lasted for 2,000 years. I would be happy to look into the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and to give him a proper written answer.

Peter Viggers: I expected to be answering questions today rather than asking them, but the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who tabled a question on postal voting has unstarred his question, which deprives several hon. Members in my party of the chance to raise the issue.
	May I take the opportunity of using a question relating to churches to thank the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell)? I particularly value his kind comments. Does he agree that the burden of maintaining one of the glories of this country, namely our old churches, falls heavily on the modest number of people in the congregations? If the state were minded to divert more resources to churches, many people would warmly welcome that.

Stuart Bell: That question gives me two opportunities. The first is to return to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Ben Chapman), and to say that faith tourism will be considered by the General Synod next month. On state involvement in Church funding and maintaining our heritage through the preservation of our buildings, it was someone else who said,
	"Render...unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's".
	The state has steadily withdrawn over many years from its Church involvement. It is a matter of great concern in the Church that secularism seems to be on the march, and that the Church and its majority community is somehow falling behind in the stakes. Everything that we say in this House on the Church, the preservation of churches and our heritage, is welcomed, and it is listened to elsewhere.

Bell Ringing

Mark Pritchard: If the Church Commissioners will hold discussions with the General Synod on policy on bell ringing in churches; and if he will make a statement.

Stuart Bell: To my knowledge, the General Synod has no plans to discuss bell ringing. Many bells in England have been heard by their communities for 400 years and they are a cherished English custom. On the rare occasions when there are allegations of nuisance from bell music, it is the Church's aim always to settle through mediation.
	I pay homage to our bell ringers up and down the land. They are conscientious about giving notice of prolonged ringing and use methods to control noise if the bells are so loud as to cause nuisance. In a parish church, the incumbent has the final say about when the bells can be rung. As I said earlier, church bell ringing began in England in the 16th century and it has been a particularly English custom ever since. Church bells are almost always the longest surviving sound in the area—that does not apply in Scotland, of course, where the bagpipes are played. There are more than 40,000 ringers in the United Kingdom. I should add that the Churchcare website gives useful guidance on church bells and the law. There is a law on bell ringers, as there is on most other things.

Mark Pritchard: I am grateful for that reply. Of course, John Betjeman wrote more about church bells than about Sunday hedge-trimming, lawnmowers or football matches. I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to all the nation's bell ringers. It is very much a part of English culture and tradition. Does he share my concern that in some villages and towns in this country, over-eager public officials, some weak-kneed vicars and human rights advocates who take the Human Rights Act 1998 to extremes want to silence this nation's bells? Will he put on record his concern and the fact that he will join me to fight any proposals to silence them? As he rightly said, they have rung out for more than 400 years—since long before the lawnmower.

Stuart Bell: We have certainly ranged far and wide today. It is Royal Ascot day, so it is not surprising that the Chamber is not as full as it might be.
	I know that the hon. Gentleman is a great supporter of churches and cathedrals, particularly Hereford cathedral, which recently celebrated the centenary of the dedication of its west front. He makes a potent and pertinent plea for bell ringers, wherever they are. They render a great service and are a great comfort to many of our majority community, which is Christian, when they hear them rung wherever they are. We are keen to keep that situation going.
	The Church Buildings Council has produced a code of practice for the conservation and repair of bells, and many local communities give extremely generously towards the upkeep and refurbishment of bells and the enlargement of groups of local ringers.

Chris Bryant: I am sure that the bells were ringing loud and clear at Great St. Bartholomew in Smithfield a couple of weeks ago when Rev. Martin Dudley, who is far from weak-kneed, performed a service to celebrate the civil partnership of two members of his congregation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is absolutely not on.

Philip Hollobone: Around the world, 95 per cent. of the churches whose bells can be change rung—in other words, the order of the bells can be changed—are in England. As the Second Church Estates Commissioner said, it is a peculiarly English tradition. Are the Church Commissioners satisfied that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is sufficiently appreciative of that fact?

Stuart Bell: Yes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter, and we would be happy to draw attention to it again. It should be noted and on record that the Church Commissioners and the Church in general work closely with that Department and remind it of its great duties to the Church as well as to secular society, and its duty to maintain the Church in its thinking. We shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to its attention.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—

Comptroller and Auditor General

David Taylor: When he last met the Comptroller and Auditor General; and what subjects were discussed.

Austin Mitchell: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission. He last met the Comptroller and Auditor General on 4 March, when the Commission considered the National Audit Office estimates for 2008-09. The issues discussed included the lower rate of increase in the NAO's estimates than in previous years, the appropriate balance between in-house auditing and outsourcing of audit work and the Commission's response to the Tyner review of the NAO's corporate governance.

David Taylor: Sir John Bourn, the previous Comptroller and Auditor General, recently excoriated senior civil servants for what he called their profound incompetence in handling defence programmes, taxation schemes and private finance initiative projects. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that Sir John's successor will ensure that the NAO watchdog, which has so often failed to bark, will sink its teeth into those matters—not least PFI, which is prohibitive in cost, flawed in concept and intolerable in consequence for the taxpayers, citizens and employees in our land?

Austin Mitchell: My hon. Friend is a most assiduous auditor of the auditors, and he was kind enough to send me Sir John Bourn's remarks, which I shall take the trouble to circulate to the Public Accounts Commission and the Public Accounts Committee. However, I have to remind him that that is the work of the Public Accounts Committee. The Commission audits only the budget to see that the NAO can carry on its work.
	Sir John Bourn's reflections were the serious reflections of a distinguished public servant on his life's work at the NAO. The new Comptroller and Auditor General has already taken over the ongoing programme, which includes the audit of public procurement projects by the Ministry of Defence and across Whitehall, for example on food procurement, the use of consultants, IT procurement and, of course, PFI contracts. We have issued several hard-hitting reports on that, and that work will go on. However, I must tell my hon. Friend with a tinge of sadness in my voice that PFI is a Government policy.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Domestic Violence

Anne Moffat: What proposals for changes in prosecution of domestic violence offences there will be as a result of the Crown Prosecution Service's violence against women strategy.

Vera Baird: The Crown Prosecution Service, after public consultation and extensive work, now has a single, cohesive violence against women strategy, which the Attorney-General will launch on 24 June. That will strengthen the prosecution response to domestic violence, through better co-ordination of guidance, training and performance management, and by supporting CPS work on victim satisfaction.

Anne Moffat: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Does she agree, however, that because some women who suffer serious domestic violence feel that less harsh penalties are available if they report the fact that they have been violated domestically, we need far stronger penalties and more prosecutions, to ensure that we give women who suffer from this dreadful thing an incentive to come forward?

Vera Baird: I do not know that that is the case, to be honest. The number of prosecutions has increased markedly. In 2005-06, 59.7 per cent. of prosecutions were successful and in the last quarter of last year, 70.1 per cent. were successful. The Sentencing Guidelines Council has done a lot of work on domestic violence. We have got away in the courts from the notion that domestic violence is a softer form of violence, which should be treated more leniently than public violence. In fact, domestic violence is a much graver kind of violence. If one is attacked on the street, one can run home; if one is attacked in one's own home, one has nowhere to go to. I hope that we have got over that hurdle and that people are being sentenced appropriately when they are convicted, as they increasingly are, of such offences.

David Howarth: Does the Solicitor-General accept that any improvements in the prosecution of domestic violence are being undermined by the long delays experienced in many parts of the country in sending offenders who have been sentenced on the effective and excellent domestic violence programmes? There are delays of six months in many parts of the country and delays of up to four years in others. That is completely unacceptable.

Vera Baird: By no means all domestic violence perpetrators are put on what are called perpetrator programmes—in the United States they are called batterer programmes. Availability varies from one part of the country to another. Delays are unfortunate. However, I am not sure that such programmes are the magic formula or cure that the hon. Gentleman suggests they are. There are other ways in which perpetrators can be brought to understand that their violence simply cannot continue. For instance, there is often a salutary lesson in the fact that when the woman finally complains, the authorities come down forcefully on her side and against the man. However, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There must be more of those programmes—the ones that are successful—and he can take it from me that the issue is being looked into.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: We obviously need increased support for victims of domestic violence, to enable them to bring the perpetrators to justice, but we also need early intervention, to prevent escalation to serious injury and, in some cases, death. Will my hon. and learned Friend join me in welcoming the recent Select Committee on Home Affairs report, which noted the positive outcomes of the one-stop shop model, of which the family justice centre in Croydon that I visited is an example? The report recommended further evaluation of the model, which I hope—and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend agrees with me—will lead to a one-stop shop centre in every local authority area.

Vera Baird: I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. It was very pleasing that the Home Affairs Committee report was positive about the work of the Crown Prosecution Service on domestic violence, as well as on forced marriage and honour crimes. I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. There is an organisation in Middlesbrough, near my constituency, called My Sister's Place, which is a one-stop shop. Domestic violence complainants are now supported by independent domestic violence advisers, who befriend them and stand beside them, right through from the point at which they make a complaint, helping them with public services and the difficulties that can follow making a complaint about domestic violence. For instance, sometimes the children have to move school and sometimes child care stops, perhaps because the in-laws were helping with it. IDVAs, as they are called, can help with all those practicalities. More of that holistic support is vital. However, we already have a large amount in place. That must be a major reason why the conviction rate has got so much higher; few complainants now give up.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Solicitor-General was quite right to say that there was a need for more provision for domestic violence treatment courses, if I may describe them in the vernacular. The truth is that two thirds of probation areas report huge delays of up to 12 months in some cases. The hon. and learned Lady has made it clear that we need more provision; will she now lobby her Cabinet colleagues to make that provision?

Vera Baird: Yes. It is not so easy simply to roll out perpetrator programmes. First, they have to be properly evaluated and monitored, and they have to be successful, so it is not just a question of getting money and, as it were, doing more automatically. A programme of work is being undertaken to evaluate the programmes, but it is quite difficult to determine how good they are. We have to rely on the victim to say whether the violence has stopped, and, almost by definition, that is historically the person who has been oppressed by the perpetrator of the violence. So there are difficulties involved in ensuring that we do not roll out programmes that are not as effective as they should be. A programme of evaluation is under way, however, and I hope that that will give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance.

Mr. Speaker: I call Katy Clark.

Katy Clark: Question No. 7, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I thought that the hon. Lady was standing in order to contribute to this question.

Katy Clark: I would also be very happy to do that.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Lady is happy, I am happy.

Katy Clark: As the Solicitor-General will be aware, a key issue is the treatment of victims by the police as well as by the prosecution services. What more can be done to ensure that women feel that their allegations are being taken seriously when they come forward to report them?

Vera Baird: A huge amount of work has been done with the police and with the Crown Prosecution Service, and it would be surprising if there were still a prevalent sense that domestic violence was not taken seriously when people come forward to report it. Now that we seem to have got the criminal justice agencies to take this matter seriously and to be immensely supportive, I see the need for earlier identification as the greater problem. We need to start putting a lot more resources into that, so that women—at least 90 per cent. of the people who suffer in this way are women—do not suffer for so long before they decide to come forward. We need to enlist all the public authorities to be watchful for the impact of domestic violence, so that there can be earlier intervention.

Jonathan Djanogly: The CPS strategy document on violence against women states that
	"the CPS has had inspections on domestic violence and rape that have highlighted areas for future action".
	Will the Minister please update the House on what those areas are and what further action she proposes to take?

Vera Baird: Those reports, particularly the ones on rape, were published in 2002, and then again in 2007. The 2002 proposals were very clear, and the CPS acted on a good number of them. However, in 2007, it was clear that there were still some deficits and that certain matters had not been brought up. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, since then, there has been a powerful, strong and concentrated programme to ensure that the policies—which the inspectors found to be in the right place and of the right kind at the top of the CPS—were being driven all the way through. There is now a powerful system of monitoring and evaluation of the way in which domestic violence and rape are dealt with in the CPS. I therefore hope that we are now well set for the future.

Cannabis Factories (Child Labour)

Anthony Steen: How many prosecutions have been brought against children found working in cannabis factories in the last three years.

Vera Baird: The CPS does not keep data that allow us to identify the number of prosecutions of children found working in cannabis factories; it keeps data on offences. I am, however, aware of one recent case in South Yorkshire in which a young boy was prosecuted for working in a cannabis factory. The CPS has guidance for prosecutors, which advises them that when a youth might have committed an offence involving cannabis cultivation and there is information that they have been trafficked—I assume that that is what the hon. Gentleman is talking about—there is a strong public interest in not prosecuting them at all.

Anthony Steen: May I first compliment the Solicitor-General on her new pixie look? I hope that that is not inappropriate. Will she explain why on 11 June a 15-year-old Vietnamese boy was jailed for the work of tending cannabis plants in Doncaster when he had clearly been trafficked, threatened with violence, kept prisoner and was desperately scared? Are not the Government supposed to be committed to rescuing child victims of trafficking, not sending them to prison and criminalising them?

Vera Baird: First, let me respond to the hon. Gentleman's effusive personal compliment to me, which I take in very good heart. I am more frequently likened to a goblin than a pixie, but I am doing my best.
	The hon. Gentleman is talking about a case in South Yorkshire. I have received information from the chief Crown prosecutor about it, which I can send to the hon. Gentleman in a letter rather than rehearse the facts of an individual case here. Will it suffice for the time being for me to say that it was literally only in mitigation of sentence in the court that the issue of trafficking was raised? The young man was arrested; he was interviewed; he had a solicitor and an appropriate adult—but the issue of trafficking was never raised. The solicitor did not appear to have taken it into account, although she accepted that she was aware that the Crown Prosecution Service would probably not prosecute if there were any evidence of trafficking. If this young man was, in the end, trafficked—there are, of course, lots of Vietnamese families in the UK, so not all Vietnamese young people are trafficked victims—it was clearly not brought to anyone's notice until the very last time. The magistrate does not seem to have referred in his sentencing to the question whether he was trafficked, but if there is something more to be said, there is still time for an appeal.

WOMEN AND EQUALITY

The Minister for Women and Equality was asked—

Lap-Dancing Clubs (Licensing)

Lynda Waltho: What recent representations she has received on the application of the gender equality duty to the licensing of lap-dancing clubs by local authorities.
	The Minister for Women and Equality (Ms Harriet Harman): Representations on lap-dancing clubs have been made, among other ways, through my hon. Friend's early-day motion and again yesterday through the private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods).

Lynda Waltho: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend is aware of the concern about this issue up and down the country, demonstrated not least by yesterday's support for the private Member's Bill. Does she not agree that it is absolutely ridiculous in this day and age that one can object to a neighbour building a porch, but cannot object to a lap-dancing club opening up 200yd up the road? Will she further commit to steering this issue through to a successful conclusion so that we are not subjected to an endless game of ping-pong between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Office, which I greatly fear?

Harriet Harman: I make that commitment to my hon. Friend, many other hon. Friends and all Members who have raised this issue. The important point is that local communities and local authorities need to know that the law is there to back them up. If the local community and the local authority think that it is inappropriate for a lap-dancing club to be opened in a particular area, the law should be there to back them up, but it is evident that that is not the position currently. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said that it was important to make commitments not just to consult, but to act. I can give the House that commitment today.

Gender Pay Gap

Jim Cunningham: What recent steps the Government have taken to reduce the gender pay gap.

Barbara Follett: The Government are committed to reducing the gender pay gap, which has been brought down from 17.4 per cent. to 12.6 per cent. in the past decade. We have introduced other supportive measures, including increased maternity pay, improved access to child care and Britain's first ever minimum wage. We have also introduced the right to request flexible working and will announce further measures shortly in the Equality Bill.

Jim Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but can she say what part gender stereotypes play in the pay gap, and what she intends to do about it?

Barbara Follett: Gender stereotyping leads to occupational segregation. That is crucial in addressing the gender pay gap, and particularly true the older the person or the woman in the work force. Women can be deterred by the lack of part-time and flexible working in male-dominated occupations, as well as by poor information and social stereotypes. That is clear when we realise that the gender pay gap is 20 per cent. in the City and in private businesses as opposed to 10.4 per cent. in public ones.
	The Government have taken a range of actions to address that, including the introduction and extension of the right to request flexible working, new support for teachers teaching careers and a series of proposed initiatives including targeted funding to encourage young people to consider atypical career choices when applying for apprenticeships.

Lynne Featherstone: Does the Minister share my concern about reports that Nottingham city council is reducing the wages of 1,400 of its employees to achieve equal pay, rather than increasing the salary of the women? Should not equal pay mean levelling up, not levelling down?

Barbara Follett: Obviously it should, but local authorities are responsible for addressing their equal pay issues and we recognise that that is a difficult and costly pressure for many of them. However, I am glad to say that progress is being made. The latest figures show that 47 per cent. of councils have either implemented or completed their pay reviews with only 3 per cent. yet to start them.
	Last year, the Government issued £500 million-worth of capitalisation directions to 46 local authorities, allowing them to borrow against the cost of back pay arising from equal pay deals, thus spreading the load of this one-off cost over a number of years. Councils can also apply for that borrowing facility in the current year.

David Chaytor: One of the most resistant councils in respect of equal pay claims would appear to be Bury under its new Conservative leadership. For more than a year, Bury council has refused to negotiate with Unison, and has prevaricated, delayed and rejected the Government's offer of capitalisation. There is no progress. Will the Minister speak to her Department for Communities and Local Government colleagues to put some pressure on Bury council to move forward on the issue, because it is completely unfair that low-paid women workers in my constituency should have to wait any longer to get their just desserts?

Barbara Follett: I commend my hon. Friend on his championing of those low-paid women in his constituency and I will discuss the matter with DCLG colleagues, but, as I said, pay is a matter for local authorities and the decision is theirs.

Alternatives to Imprisonment

Roberta Blackman-Woods: What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on alternatives to imprisonment for women.

Barbara Follett: The Government are fully committed to reducing the number of women in prison. I have had regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on that matter and the Government have agreed to promote community orders as an alternative to custody, in response to Baroness Corston's recommendations on women offenders.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. She will know that the Corston report talks about the need to inform sentencers of the need for alternatives to custody. What is being done specifically to make non-custodial sentences a reality so that the women who end up in Low Newton prison in my constituency get the support that they need in the community to direct them from crime in the first place?

Barbara Follett: First, I commend my hon. Friend on the work that she is doing in this particularly difficult area. She is quite right: we need to ensure that more women, who often get sentences for relatively minor offences, are dealt with in the community.
	To that end, the Government are considering how we can promote a sentence package that targets offenders who might otherwise have received a custodial sentence with an intensive community order using the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and making use of the mix of requirements available to the courts. I am glad to say that a pilot project is under way in the Derbyshire area to promote such a community order and I look forward to hearing the results.

James Duddridge: How many women's prisons have been closed and converted to mixed asylum centres, a process that has effectively forced the Government's hand on the issue of finding a viable alternative?

Barbara Follett: I am afraid that I do not have the information at my fingertips, although I do know that 4,000 of the 82,000 people who are currently in prison in the United Kingdom are women. I will, however, write to the hon. Gentleman with the answer to his question.

Domestic Violence

Hugh Bayley: What progress the Government have made in tackling violence against women.

Barbara Follett: My Department's report "Tackling Violence Against Women: A Cross-Government Narrative" provides a detailed summary of the progress made in this vitally important area. The Government have introduced a number of measures, including a dedicated forced marriages unit and specialist domestic violence courts. As a result of those and other measures, the number of successful prosecutions for both domestic violence and rape has increased since 2003.

Hugh Bayley: I congratulate the Government on bringing more such cases to court. Provision of domestic violence outreach services is excellent in some parts of the country, but funding is patchy. Outreach can prevent violence from escalating to a point at which women, children and occasionally men are forced out of the family home and into refuges. What can the Government do to extend its provision?

Barbara Follett: The Government are considering many ways of extending outreach provision for domestic violence victims, and for women who are victims of sexual violence. We have already done so through, for instance, rape crisis centres and sexual assault referral centres, which are making great progress at present, and we hope to do more soon on the domestic violence front.

Brooks Newmark: A letter that I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice), acknowledges that the number of domestic violence victims has risen by 12 per cent. in the past year, from 594,000 to 664,00. She attributes the increase to better reporting, but it is quite a large increase. How much of it does the Minister think can be attributed to the 24-hour drinking that takes place nowadays?

Barbara Follett: The incidence of reporting has certainly increased. I think that women now feel more confident about coming forward, and that there are better systems to protect them. I cannot speculate on how much the increase in the number of reported cases is due to drinking, although I am sure that Ministers at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will look into the possibility.

Theresa May: A range of issues are covered by the issue of violence against women. The Government estimate that about 20,000 girls in this country are at risk of genital mutilation, yet they have no national strategy. They have issued no guidance to the police on the issue since 2004, and there has not been a single prosecution under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. I am sure the Minister agrees that that is not acceptable. What is she going to do about it?

Barbara Follett: It is certainly not acceptable. As the right hon. Lady will know, I have spent a good deal of my life in Africa, and I have seen the results of female genital mutilation both in that continent and in this country. It is something that I abhor. I take the right hon. Lady's point about the need for a strategy, and we shall be presenting one later this year.

People Trafficking

Anthony Steen: What further steps the Government plan to take to assist women who have been trafficked.

Barbara Follett: The Government will build on the positive measures that we have already taken as a result of acceleration of our plans to ratify the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings. More than 322 women have been supported by the POPPY project since March 2003.

Anthony Steen: The worst thing for a young woman who has been trafficked is to feel that no one cares anything about her, her welfare or her future. Does the Minister agree that it is essential for us to give such women identity papers, as set out in the Council of Europe convention, which the Government have signed but still not ratified? Women experience a sense of belonging and security if they have identity papers. Given that it is not necessary to wait for ratification to provide them, what is preventing the Government from getting a move on?

Barbara Follett: As always, the hon. Gentleman has brought a new slant to a problem on which he has done a great deal of work. We are speeding up our ratification of the convention, and doing as much as we can to move it along. I will raise his point with Home Office Ministers.

Stephen Hesford: May I bring to the attention of the House my early-day motion 1755 on the Women Leaders Council, a new international body for women only put together to combat the crime of human trafficking? Will the Government do all they can to liaise with the new council to prosecute and eradicate human trafficking?

Barbara Follett: I commend my hon. Friend on the EDM and I particularly commend the work of the Women Leaders Council. Some will have seen the imaginative installation by Emma Thompson in Trafalgar square to publicise it. We need imaginative things such as that, but we also need hard work on human trafficking. Straight after these questions, I and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, will be going to Holland to explore what is being done there on human trafficking, on which, frankly, much more needs to be done.

Carers

Lyn Brown: What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on support for women who are carers.

Barbara Follett: The Prime Minister launched the revised National Carers Strategy on 10 June, which set out a £255 million package of support for carers. Throughout the development of the strategy, I had discussions with ministerial colleagues about support for women carers.

Lyn Brown: Research by USDAW has shown that working carers are not aware of their right to request flexible working. What will the Government do to advertise more widely that right to make it easier for carers in the workplace?

Barbara Follett: My hon. Friend is quite right. The research into the knowledge of the right to request flexible working provides some discouraging figures. I have had talks with colleagues in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform about how we can advertise this. We intend to come forward with a programme.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission was asked—

Tap Water

John Spellar: If the Commission will review the recommendation of the Administration Committee not to provide tap water at meetings held in the House.

Nick Harvey: The Commission relies on the advice given by the Administration Committee in matters of this sort and normally proceeds on the basis of a report from the Committee. I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to seek to persuade the Committee to change its advice on this matter.

John Spellar: Is not the hon. Gentleman getting rather embarrassed at continuing to defend this issue when we know that bottled water is hugely environmentally unfriendly? Following my campaign, many Departments have significantly reduced their use of bottled water. Following the  Evening Standard campaign, many restaurants in London are providing tables with tap water. When MPs are lecturing the public about reducing waste, and are even imposing fines on people for putting more waste into their bins, is it right for the House of Commons resolutely to refuse to take the issue on board and to save the environment while saving some money?

Nick Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman knows from discussions that we have had on the matter that I have a great deal of sympathy with what he is saying. We have asked officials of the House to keep in touch with officials from the House of Lords who are investigating the possibility of an on-site watering facility— [ Interruption. ] I mean a bottling facility; there are plenty of on-site watering facilities. The right hon. Gentleman and those who agree with him must continue to put pressure on the Administration Committee, which looked at the issue recently. I am not sure how scientific its study was. It is essential that the Committee looks at it again.

Andrew MacKay: With the greatest respect, that is rather complacent. Nobody in their right mind in the real world wastes money on bottled water. Chateau Thames water is perfectly acceptable. It is about time that we did not waste money in this House. It brings us into disrepute and the sooner we have ordinary tap water, the better. Why do not we just get on with it?

Nick Harvey: I will communicate the right hon. Gentleman's views to the Administration Committee, but I would urge him to do so as well.

Staff Pension Scheme

Hugh Bayley: If the Commission will examine the financial implications of extending the House of Commons staff pension scheme to staff of hon. Members.

Nick Harvey: The employees of Members of Parliament are not employees of this House. It would therefore not be possible in a technical sense for them to be part of this scheme, which is run by the House for its employees. The contracts of MPs' staff specify that they are part of the Portcullis pension plan, which means that a contribution equivalent to 10 per cent. of their gross salary is paid by the House to one or more stakeholder pension providers.

Hugh Bayley: None of us could do our jobs as Members of Parliament without the professional support of Clerks, Librarians and the other staff of the House, but, equally, none of us could do our jobs without the support of our staff, in our constituency offices and here in Westminster. It is outrageous that Members and the staff of the House belong to good public sector final salary pension schemes, but other public servants, who serve the public for years, end up on the Portcullis plan and face retirement on a fraction of the incomes of House staff. Will the House of Commons Commission examine this problem and do something about it?

Nick Harvey: The 10 per cent. employer contribution is about average for similar schemes run by large employers. The current arrangements have been in place for five years, but if the hon. Gentleman feels that the time is right to review the scheme, he should, in the first instance, approach the Advisory Panel on Members' Allowances to suggest a review of the scheme.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Topical Debates

Nicholas Winterton: When she expects to complete the review of the procedures for selection of the subject matter for topical debates.

Harriet Harman: The results of the review on topical debates will be published to the House before the summer recess. That will help to inform any decision of the House on whether to make permanent the Standing Orders that introduced topical debates on an experimental basis for the 2007-08 Session, and whether any changes to the Standing Orders may be necessary.

Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for that helpful and informative reply. Does she not believe that the House as a whole should have more of a say, in a transparent way, in the selection of the subject for the topical debate? At the moment, the decision lies exclusively with her and the Government. Should it not involve a small committee representing parties across the House, so that the debates are genuinely topical and supported by a majority of the House?

Harriet Harman: The decision on the choice for the topical debate rests with me, as Leader of the House, because that is what the House decided, by way of resolution, should be the system for picking the topical debate. That arrangement is subject to review, because, as I have said, it was introduced on an experimental basis. In order to increase transparency and at the request of a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, we have introduced greater transparency even ahead of the review's findings, publishing a list of the requests that have been made to me as Leader of the House. I remind the House that I am at pains to ensure that I approach this as business of the House, even though it is Government time. For example, a request was made to me at last week's business questions for a debate on eco-towns, and that is exactly what we will be debating as the subject of this afternoon's topical debate.

David Taylor: Debating time in the House's two Chambers is in short supply, and the initiative of topical debates has been a useful way of widening the range of debates and increasing the number of people who contribute. On the related area of the 90-minute debates in Westminster Hall, could we examine ways of making those a more effective weapon in this place? Far too often, people who have bid for debates, which are granted by Mr. Speaker in good faith, come along with no one else to speak to the matter in hand, and that cannot be the most effective use of Westminster Hall time.

Harriet Harman: Westminster Hall debates, be they on Select Committee matters, at the initiative of private Members or Government-sponsored debates, have proved a useful additional debating forum for hon. Members to raise issues of concern, but I think that we could further consider the use of Westminster Hall—for example, it is not used on Mondays. I shall take my hon. Friend's question as a prompt for further consideration and report back to the House on how that might be undertaken.

Philip Davies: The Leader of the House said that she would treat this as a House matter, but can she tell us how many times the subject for the topical debate has happened to be the subject about which the Prime Minister has made a speech earlier in the week?

Harriet Harman: Well, I have not got the actual list, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I follow the Standing Orders, and the letter and spirit of the resolution, and consider whether the debate is topical; whether it is an issue of concern or national importance; and whether there have been other opportunities to debate the issue in the House. The questions that have been the subject of topical debates come from both sides of the House. Sometimes they coincide with an issue on which the Prime Minister has put forward a proposal, but they often do not.

George Young: On what basis does the Leader of the House, under the current procedures, decide on some Mondays that life is so uneventful that we do not need a topical debate at all?

Harriet Harman: I do not decide not to have a topical debate because life is uneventful. It is a question of what other business we might have that the House wants to debate. For example, on 3 July, the Foreign Secretary will lead a debate on Zimbabwe and we will also debate Members' allowances. Sometimes I take the view that issues of concern need a full day for debate, and that should be the priority for the House. It is not that there is no issue of topicality that the House might want to debate, but that on that day there is another issue that we will want to spend the whole day debating. If there is any particular Thursday that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to raise, because he thinks that we should have had a topical debate but did not, he should do so.
	I should point out that there is a dearth of proposals for topical debates. I would not want anyone to get the impression that there is a vast number of topical debate requests that I ignore in favour of a topic chosen by the Prime Minister— [ Interruption. ] Well, that is absolutely not the case. Hon. Members are being cynical, but instead of their snorting cynicism, they should make some proposals for topical debates.

Programme Motions

Peter Bone: If she will bring forward proposals to amend Standing Orders to provide for debate on all programme motions.

Helen Goodman: We have no plans to bring forward motions to amend the present programming arrangements in that respect; they already allow for most such motions to be debated directly or, subject to the Chair, to be brought into debate on related business.

Peter Bone: With due respect to the Deputy Leader of the House, I do not think that that is quite correct. We cannot debate Second Reading programme motions: they have to be put forthwith. I am surprised that the Leader of the House has not corrected her earlier statement when she promised to look into this matter. Would it not be better if these horrible programme motions—if we have to have them at all—were handled by a business Committee of this House, rather than the usual channels?

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman is right that the Standing Order indicates that the question on the programme motion should be put forthwith, but that does not mean that it cannot be debated. It can be debated as part of the Second Reading debate, with the agreement of the Chair. I am grateful to him for motivating me to consider the way in which the Order Paper is drafted. As he knows, at the moment the programme motion, which usually follows the Second Reading motion on the Order Paper, says that there will be no debate on it. It might be clearer if it stated "No further debate." If the House would prefer that, we could raise it with the House authorities. It might be a more helpful way to set the issues out on the Order Paper.

Shailesh Vara: On Report on the Counter-Terrorism Bill, Members had only three hours to discuss 16 new clauses and dozens of new amendments. With the Planning Bill, 218 new amendments were tabled at a very late stage. Late amendments were also tabled for the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, meaning that they could not be debated. When will the Leader of the House provide proper time for Members to discuss vital issues?

Helen Goodman: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition that proper time is not being given. I want to give him some other facts that will demonstrate how flexible we are and how we take account of the needs of the House to debate particular matters. Let us take as an example the European Union (Amendment) Bill. We spent a whole day discussing a motion—it was not a programme motion, but a motion on how the House would handle the Bill—and agreed how we would handle it. Let us take Finance Bills. They are not programmed at all. Let us take the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. It spent two days before the Committee of the whole House, as was agreed in a programme motion on Second Reading. Let us take, as the hon. Gentleman does, the Counter-Terrorism Bill. We had two days on Report and the programme motion was debated for 45 minutes at the beginning of that stage. Let us take the Banking (Special Provisions) Bill, where we had an allocation— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Lady can write to the hon. Gentleman.

Simon Hughes: The Leader of the House and her deputy are being far too defensive. They might be the Opposition in two years' time, not the Government. As the Leader of the House said to me a few weeks ago, there is a very good case for ensuring that Government amendments and new clauses receive extra time on Report, because otherwise they eat into time that is meant not for the Government but for the rest of the House of Commons so that we can ask questions.
	Can we look again at programme motions? If this place is meant to hold the Executive to account, one of the best ways that we can do it is by delaying Government business. If they take away that weapon, the Deputy Leader of the House and the Leader of the House might live to regret it as much as others do now.

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman, as ever, puts his case most persuasively. Of course, it is right that on Report hon. Members should have a proper opportunity to discuss all the issues. In particular, Back-Bench Members should have their share of the time. I would, however, like to point out that, following the introduction of programme motions, there has been a declining trend in the number of groups of amendments that have not been reached. Of course, we always keep these matters under review.

Business of the House

Theresa May: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

Harriet Harman: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 23 June—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Sale of Student Loans Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2008, followed by a motion to approve the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2008.
	Tuesday 24 June—Opposition day [15th allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled "Cost of Living", followed by a debate on the 60th anniversary of the NHS. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
	Wednesday 25 June—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Planning Bill.
	Thursday 26 June—A general debate on the draft Legislative Programme.
	Friday 27 June—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 30 June will include:
	Monday 30 June—Opposition day [16th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
	Tuesday 1 July—The House will be asked to approve Ways and Means resolutions on the Finance Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Finance Bill—day 1.
	Wednesday 2 July—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
	Thursday 3 July—Topical debate on Zimbabwe followed by motions relating to MPs' pay and allowances.
	Friday 4 July—The House will not be sitting.

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for giving us the forthcoming business. As she has just announced, on 3 July we are scheduled to have a topical debate on Zimbabwe, but does she not think that the situation there is so serious that we should have not a one and a half hour debate but a full debate on the subject, in Government time? She announced that on 3 July we will also have two other debates—one on the Baker review on Members' pay, and the other on the Members Estimate Committee review of allowances—but we will have only four hours for them. Will she at least guarantee that on that day there will be no ministerial oral statements to eat further into the time available for debate?
	On 5 July we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the NHS, so may we have a debate before the summer recess on the NHS? Not only are a quarter of NHS trusts in England failing to meet at least one of the Government's standards on hygiene, but babies are being turned away from hospitals owing to a lack of cots and specialist staff. That comes at a time when the Government are closing maternity units across the country, so may we have a debate on NHS priorities?
	In the past week, there have been five separate security breaches, with Government documents and computers containing highly sensitive information being left on trains and stolen from offices. There have been clear breaches of security rules. That follows the Government's loss of the personal details of 25 million people last autumn. Clearly, there is a culture of carelessness at the heart of this Government. Last December, the Minister for the Cabinet Office told the House that a report would be published this spring on the procedure for and storage of sensitive data, yet we have heard nothing. Will the right hon. and learned Lady ensure that the report is published before the summer recess, and that Members will have the opportunity to challenge Ministers in this House and to ensure that data security is improved?
	The Casey report, commissioned by the Prime Minister, calls for a revolution in the treatment of victims of crime, and claims that the criminal justice system is patronising in its attitude to the public. That comes on top of Sir Ian Blair saying that there is "almost no public faith" in crime figures in the UK, that Government police targets should be scrapped, and that there should be a return to common-sense policing. Crime levels are of grave concern to us all, so can we have a debate on approaches to policing and crime prevention?
	Finally, there will be an Opposition day debate on the cost of living next week. We face rising mortgage costs, growing unemployment, soaring prices for fuel, electricity, gas and food, and the prospect of higher interest rates. It is no good telling people that those are global issues and nothing to do with this Government. The Government have no room for manoeuvre because they failed to put money aside in the good times. Will the right hon. and learned Lady ensure that, before that Opposition day debate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes a full, clear statement showing that the Government are finally willing to take responsibility for their actions?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Lady raised the subject of the terrible situation in Zimbabwe, which I know is of concern to all Members. Indeed, the subject was raised in Prime Minister's questions yesterday. She will be aware that I have announced there is to be a topical debate on the issue, which the Foreign Secretary will lead. In addition, we will have Foreign Office questions, including topical questions, next Tuesday, so there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to raise points on that occasion.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned the Baker review and allowances. Those issues will be debated, and the House will have an opportunity to decide on them on 3 July. She asked for a debate on the national health service; as she will know, her party has an Opposition day debate on the NHS next week, so no doubt she can raise any points that she wants to make then. In that debate, the Government will no doubt set out how we have made unprecedented investment in the national health service, providing more doctors and nurses and shorter waiting lists, and how we will continue to improve the provision of health care.
	The right hon. Lady asked us to focus on procedures for the storage of sensitive data. She will know that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made a statement on the issue last Thursday. We keep the House up to date with information of that nature, and the report will be forthcoming.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned crime levels and whether there would be an opportunity to debate them. Perhaps I can take this opportunity to thank Louise Casey for her thoughtful and helpful report. The right hon. Lady will no doubt acknowledge that crime levels have been falling, but there is concern about serious and organised crime, particularly about gang crime among young people, and that is why, on the Thursday before last or last Thursday, we arranged a topical debate on knife crime.
	The right hon. Lady asked for a debate about the cost of living, but she herself has scheduled an Opposition day debate about it. We are pointing out to the House that the increases in the cost of petrol, gas, electricity and food, which are putting a great deal of pressure on family finances, come from world issues—global issues. But we have to make absolutely sure, and we will, that this country has a path through those difficult economic circumstances that have arisen internationally, and that, as we respond to the short-term problems, we do not create longer-term problems. We understand the pressures that people are under, and we are taking action nationally and internationally to ensure that this country can weather the economic storm.

Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in the coalfields in particular there has been investment during the good times, and that we could usefully have a debate on the subject? In the past 10 years, every single pit tip has been flattened, and instead of those pit tips we have factories on the sites. Unemployment in Bolsover is now 10 per cent. below the national average. We have been investing in the good times to provide for the bad times. That is why on Friday I will be opening what is commonly known as Skinner's junction on the M1 to provide another 5,000 jobs: investment in the good times producing jobs in the bad times.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is because of the investment in our people in this country—in their skills, in our industry, particularly in science, and in infrastructure, including public transport—that our economy is in a good position to weather the difficult storm. It might well be that the Opposition think that was not a worthwhile investment. I should like to hear from any of them who think that it was not worth investing in their local school, in their local transport infrastructure and in their local industries. That is what we have been doing over the past 10 years, and that is why we can be confident that, in difficult times, the economy will be strong enough to find a way forward.

Simon Hughes: Obviously, we are pleased that next week there will be a half-day debate on the cost of living, but given that yesterday my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) asked about the mismatch between oil companies' huge profits—windfalls of £9 billion—and the fact that people on the lowest incomes are having to pay higher prices for their energy than other people are, may we have a debate specifically on the energy and power companies, their profits and their social responsibility? Out there, in the real world, the public think that some people are making a huge profit while others struggle to pay the weekly bills.
	It is good that the Leader of the House has announced that we will have a debate on Zimbabwe at an early opportunity. I join those who say that we should have enough time for the full contributions from across the House that I am sure that subject needs. May we also have in the near future a debate on the opportunity that there now is for some progress to be made in Palestine and Gaza, given the ceasefire that has been announced today?
	On Tuesday, the Government's Defence and Security Organisation announced that for the first time ever the United Kingdom has become the world's largest arms exporter. Given that in the recent past there have been some difficulties, to put it gently, to do with arms sales such as the ones between BAe Systems and Saudi Arabia, and if we are going to be the people who lead in this industry, may we have an early debate on the ethics and responsibility of the arms trade around the world, where far too much business ends up with arms going into the wrong hands?
	This week there was a significant report by the King's Fund saying that the cost of treating people with dementia is likely to double over the next 20 years. That is an issue of concern that is often raised around the House. May we have a debate on how we are going to care for and pay for the care of those with dementia or Alzheimer's and the adult mentally infirm?
	Yesterday there was a very important announcement by the Law Lords—I expect that the Leader of the House has seen it—that a murder conviction was quashed because it is wrong to give anonymity to witnesses other than in cases relating to children and in rape cases. Could the Justice Secretary come to the House and seek a way forward, with consensus on both sides of the House, as to how very nasty people can be convicted and the convictions upheld, if necessary by changing the rules to give more anonymity to witnesses so that crimes can be dealt with and the innocent and the victims supported?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman raised a question that concerns everybody: the increase in fuel prices. He will know that the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee has been looking into the operation of energy companies and energy prices. He will also bear in mind the fact that we have already taken action through the winter fuel payments to protect pensioners, through tax credits to help low-income families, particularly those with children, and through an insulation programme. My right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform are keeping a very clear focus on ensuring that the fuel and energy companies are competitive and play their part in these difficult times. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Prime Minister is going to Saudi Arabia to discuss oil supply. There will be an opportunity for Members who want to raise these issues to do so next week in the debates on the Finance Bill.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the opportunity that might present itself for much greater peace and a more hopeful future as between Israel and Palestine. I should like to thank Tony Blair for his work on this, which has been very important in the international process. Hon. Members will be aware that he gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, which is looking into the issue.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about arms trading. There is a debate on defence procurement later today.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked an important question about dementia. There is a written ministerial statement by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), on the development of a national dementia strategy. This is a subject of great concern, given that the number of people aged over 85 is set to double over the next 20 years. There has been increased investment in the national health service and in social care, but we need to look at the trends and ensure that we prepare for them. As well as focusing on health and social services, one important element that we will not lose sight of is how we support families as they care for older relatives.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the important matter of the House of Lords judgment cutting back on anonymity for witnesses. We will consider that judgment. However, we are absolutely clear that we must ensure that offenders are brought to justice and that this is not such an ordeal for victims and witnesses that they dare not step forward. Should legislation be necessary, there will be an opportunity to bring forward measures in the law reform, victims and witnesses Bill that is to be included in the Queen's Speech. The draft legislative programme will be debated next Thursday.

Barry Gardiner: After the death of 10 women in Northwick Park hospital in my constituency through complications in childbirth, the maternity unit there was put into special measures. It came out of special measures in September last year, but since those original 10 deaths three more women have died in that unit from childbirth complications. Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my absolute incredulity that the chair of the hospital trust is still refusing to hold an independent inquiry into the matter, and will she ensure that time is made available for Members to discuss it in this House?

Harriet Harman: Without waiting for the opportunity to debate it, I shall raise with the Secretary of State for Health the points that my hon. Friend has made. There will be an opportunity to raise the issue on the Floor of the House in the debate next Tuesday. Fewer women now die in childbirth and fewer babies die when they are born, but we have to be determined that every single maternity unit lives up to the standards of the best. I know that is what my hon. Friend is determined to see for his constituents and his local hospital.

Henry Bellingham: May we have a debate on domestic violence? Is the Leader of the House aware that section 12 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, which brought in restraining orders to protect partners from abuse, has not been implemented? Is it true that Baroness Thornton, a Minister in another place, has now admitted that that delay in implementation is due entirely to pressure on prison places? Is it not a disgrace that spouse beaters are avoiding jail because of the prisons crisis?

Harriet Harman: It is not the case that wife beaters or men involved in domestic violence are avoiding prison because of the increase in the prison population. It is important that the courts know that every offender who is convicted of a serious violent offence, such as domestic violence, will be sent to prison where appropriate. The hon. Gentleman mentions section 12, which I agree should be implemented as soon as possible.

David Chaytor: The price of oil is the single biggest factor underlying all the current global economic difficulties. Although increasing the supply of oil may give some temporary relief, in the long term the problem is that supply is running out. We know that we have passed the peak of production of UK oil, and many petroleum geologists now believe that we are approaching the peak of global production of oil. May we have a debate about peak oil? Would that not give us the opportunity to consider what happened during the boom years of North sea oil, when the Conservatives were in control, and what they did with the money? Did they put it aside, or did they use it to—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not about the business of the House.

Harriet Harman: I can tell my hon. Friend that the North sea oil revenues were spent on unemployment benefit because of the vast number of people who were unemployed instead of earning a living and paying taxes. Because of the terrible toll of unemployment, North sea oil revenues went straight out of the North sea and into unemployment benefit. That is why we put full employment right at the top of our agenda. My hon. Friend made an important point about the price of oil, which affects not only family budgets but business budgets. It is important that we develop more public transport to assist people, that we have more renewable energy supplies, and that we have more insulation. We have to ensure that fuel is affordable, but for the long term we must look at alternatives.

David Heath: I used to ask almost weekly for a debate on post office closures. It is now too late for my constituency, where nine post offices are to be closed irrespective of the views and needs of local communities. May we have a debate on the award of the Post Office card account contract? The National Federation of SubPostmasters estimates that if that contract is awarded to anyone other than the Post Office, a further 3,000 post offices may close, to the great detriment of our communities and our constituents.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman will be able to raise that matter in oral questions to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, or he might consider a debate in Westminster Hall. I know that a number of hon. Members may want to join him in that.

Chris Mullin: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider finding time for a debate on the impact of the Rating (Empty Properties) Act 2007, which threatens to put a considerable number of my constituents out of work, and about which, I am sorry to say, Ministers appear to be in denial at the moment?

Harriet Harman: I shall raise my hon. Friend's point with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

George Young: If, as seems inevitable, the other place amends the Government's Counter-Terrorism Bill, can the right hon. and learned Lady say when the Bill will return to this House? Will she guarantee that there will be adequate time to debate any amendments, and can she say whether the Treasury will be able to afford another Government win?

Harriet Harman: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, debates in the other place are not programmed: it is simply a question of when the other place concludes its debates on the matter. The Bill will then follow the usual course of events. It is important for this House to ensure that, against a mounting threat of terrorism, we have the right laws for the police and courts to apply, and that we have the right safeguards for civil liberties. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the police and the prosecutors who, week in, week out, protect us by prosecuting serious terrorist offences in courts, and whose achievement in doing so is considerable.

Gwyn Prosser: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the difficulties caused by academic selection to non-grammar schools in places such as Kent, and I know that she shares my support for the Government's national challenge. However, is she aware of the damage done to the 638 schools that were named and shamed last week, three of which were in my constituency of Dover, in the Deal area? Will she consider scheduling a debate on this important issue?

Harriet Harman: The purpose of the national challenge, which the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families set out, is to make absolutely sure that every child has the best opportunities in their education, every day they go to school. The intention is not to demoralise staff or to stigmatise schools, but to make absolutely sure that every school is a good school. Given that children spend only one period of time at school, we cannot afford to allow a situation to develop whereby they are not getting the best education each day they are there.

Christopher Chope: Does the right hon. and learned Lady agree with paragraph 66 of the report of Sir John Baker on pay and allowances, which says that there needs to be
	"a clear distinction between salary and reimbursement of expenses"?
	To that end, would she facilitate such a distinction by ensuring that we have two separate debates on salary and expenses on 3 July?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I will take up his proposal, and we will have separate debates: one on remuneration, pay and pensions, and the other on reimbursement of expenditure, which hon. Members need to run their offices, to travel to and from their constituencies and to live away from their constituencies when the House is sitting.

Gordon Prentice: In the next few weeks, a decision will be taken on the contract on the clean-up of Sellafield and the country's stockpile of nuclear waste, which could cost up to £75,000 million, based on the Government's figures. May we have a debate on the management of nuclear waste, in the context of the Government's restated policy vastly to expand the nuclear industry?

Harriet Harman: There was a statement on nuclear waste by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last week, but I will raise with colleagues the points that my hon. Friend makes.

Nicholas Winterton: I fully support the call of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) for a longer debate on Zimbabwe, although I am most grateful to the Leader of the House for arranging a topical debate on 3 July. May I help the Leader of the House in responding to the concerns about Zimbabwe by asking whether she would arrange for the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs or a Foreign Office Minister to come to the House next week to give information on the number of election observers and monitors who will be in place when that election occurs? As the Leader of the House knows, it will take place before the debate in this House. That election cannot be free and fair unless there are independent international observers present to witness it.

Harriet Harman: Foreign Office questions are next Tuesday, and there will be an opportunity for topical questions to be asked. The election will then be on Friday, and the following week there will be the debate led by the Foreign Secretary. The whole House is concerned about the situation, and we will keep the matter under review and ensure that the House has an opportunity to have a debate and play its part in expressing to the world, to African countries and to people in Zimbabwe the fact that we stand behind the Zimbabwean people and their right to vote and choose their own Government.

David Kidney: Will my right hon. and learned Friend agree to publish the Government's final proposals for the equality Bill ahead of next Thursday's general debate on the draft legislative programme, the better to inform the debate on such important matters as outlawing age discrimination and enabling mothers to breast-feed their babies in public?

Harriet Harman: I will quite shortly be setting out to the House the provisions that we expect to be included in the Government's new equality Bill. Hon. Members and many outside organisations have said that they feel that the last frontier of equality is ensuring that the growing number of older people in this country do not unfairly face prejudice and discrimination.
	My hon. Friend mentioned breast-feeding. I confirm to him that we intend to make it clear in the Bill that it is not acceptable for women who are breast-feeding their babies to be shooed out of restaurants, public galleries or other public places. It is important that we encourage and support women who are breast-feeding their children, so the law should make it clear that it is not possible to exclude a woman on that basis.

Andrew MacKay: Is it not clear that the sheer magnitude of the evil tyranny in Zimbabwe dictates that we should have a longer debate rather than just a topical debate or rely on the vagaries of Foreign Office questions next week?
	The Leader of the House mentioned Prime Minister's Question Time. Will she comment on why the Prime Minister did not answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) about China's role in bankrolling Mugabe?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a question about the business for next week. The right hon. and learned Lady will try to answer the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question.

Harriet Harman: I understand the concern that the right hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members have raised. There is great concern about Zimbabwe, and the House wants an opportunity to debate it widely and hear from the Government. That opportunity will be afforded not only in Foreign Office questions next week but immediately after the election has been held, on 3 July.

David Drew: The Climate Change Bill will start its Committee stage next week, which is really good news. Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that there is no attempt to weaken clause 80, on mandatory reporting of the carbon emissions of larger companies? It has widespread support from the business community, and the CBI is not against it. Non-governmental organisations and many Members of the House have signed up to it, and the changes were agreed without a Division in the other place. Will my right hon. and learned Friend talk to her colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to ensure that we do not change that clause, because it is jolly good as it stands?

Harriet Harman: I will bring to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends in DEFRA the points made by my hon. Friend, who is a great champion of tackling climate change. If we are to make progress, it is important that we can see where progress is being made. Monitoring is part of that.

Mark Lancaster: May we have a debate on the performance of the Office of the Public Guardian? I am sure that hon. Members of all parties have been contacted by constituents who are concerned by the increasing length of time that it is taking to get lasting powers of attorney. In the case of one of my constituents, it has now been some 20 weeks—almost three times the target time in which the OPG says it will deliver it. That is causing major distress to families who are already having to deal with ailing relatives. I simply ask the Leader of the House whether we can look into that matter.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. There are not a huge number of people affected, but it is a huge issue for those who are. I shall raise it with the relevant Departments and consider how to deal with it.

David Taylor: May I refer to my early-day motion 1839?
	 That this House is alarmed by the Government's proposal to abolish the requirement on employers to retain employers' liability compulsory insurance for 40 years; acknowledges that the existing law is poorly enforced; notes that the Government intend to introduce a statutory instrument before the summer recess to achieve this reform to employment and insurance law; recognises the significant distress of mesothelioma sufferers and their families who have been awarded industrial injury damages in court but cannot trace their former employers' insurers; believes that this inability to trace the insurers of employers whose workers were exposed to fatal asbestos dust as part of their work illustrates the need for insurance law to be strengthened, not weakened; further believes that the Department for Work and Pensions' solution will absolve employers and their insurers from responsibility for future victims of industrial illnesses like mesothelioma who are diagnosed with a fatal industrial illness many years after exposure; and calls upon the Government not to introduce this statutory instrument to withdraw and to consult the public further on this matter.
	It draws attention to the Government's proposal to introduce before the summer recess a statutory instrument to weaken insurance law and remove the obligation on employers to retain compulsory employers liability insurance for 40 years. That would have a serious effect on those who are exposed to occupational hazards that are slow to show, such as mesothelioma. If the Leader of the House were to persuade the Government not to introduce that statutory instrument and to put it out to further consultation, that would create more space for the packed range of submissions that she is receiving this morning. The issue is serious and affects many thousands of people, and we do not know what many of them are being exposed to.

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. We want to ensure that standards of health and safety at work are as high as possible, and with the most effective regulation. Perhaps I will suggest to my fellow Ministers that they meet him and any other hon. Members who want to raise the issue before the regulations come before the House.

Peter Bone: Rushden bowling club, in my constituency, normally gets a water bill for £300 every six months. Recently, £10,000 was debited from its account. It never received a bill, neither the bank nor the water company will do anything about it, and it has turned to me as a last hope. May we have a topical debate on the relevance of the power of utility companies over private citizens?

Harriet Harman: I have urged Members to put forward proposals for topical debates, and the hon. Gentleman has done exactly that. I shall consider it, but he might also consider applying for an Adjournment debate on the case of his bowling club.

Brian Iddon: During the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, there has been considerable support in both Houses for the proposal to establish a parliamentary bioethics committee. In my view, it should cover human as well as animal bioethics, because issues such as xenotransplantation and admixed human embryos cross the boundary. Will my right hon. and learned Friend be prepared to take that issue through the usual channels and particularly seek Government support? Perhaps we can have a statement before the Bill's final stages in this place.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes some very good points. I know that the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), has said that we will reflect further on that matter. If a Joint Committee were to be set up, it would be an issue for both Houses to consider, and it may be something for myself and other members of the Modernisation Committee or the Procedure Committee to look into.

Julian Lewis: Some 235 right hon. and hon. Members have so far signed early-day motion 1620.
	 [ That this House believes that the home address of any hon. or Rt. hon. Member should not be published if he or she objects to publication on grounds of privacy or personal security. ]
	It is about the dangerous decision of judges that MPs' home addresses should be published. Will there be an opportunity to consider that matter on 3 July? I should like to tell the House about the three polite but firm notes of refusal that I had from the judges who made that decision, after I asked them whether they would give me their home addresses. Clearly, judges believe that they are more at risk from MPs than MPs are from everybody else.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman's early-day motion has shown two things: that there is great concern across the House and that there is something by way of a consensus. The consensus is that there should be transparency and that we should ensure that the public know that public money is being spent properly, and that there are strict and clear rules. That will be the subject of the Members Estimate Committee's proposals about Members' allowances and reimbursement of expenditure. Although hon. Members want to ensure that the public have confidence in how money is spent, it is absolutely clear that we must have the freedom to debate in this Chamber without having to look over our shoulder. It must not be the case that, because our addresses have been published, we cannot speak freely about something controversial.
	In response to the hon. Gentleman's point and his early-day motion, I not only propose that the House should have the opportunity to debate the matter on 3 July, but I shall place a resolution before the House so that hon. Members will have the opportunity to vote for the views expressed in the early-day motion.

Jim Sheridan: Can we have a debate on the exploitation of illegal migrant workers in this country by employers? My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of recently introduced Government legislation, under which, as of today, companies and company directors who knowingly employ illegal immigrants will be not only fined but named and shamed. Although that is welcome, will the Leader of the House go one step further and use her good offices to influence her Cabinet colleagues, so that when Government contracts are tendered for, the activities of such companies and company directors are taken into account?

Harriet Harman: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has spent many years, before he entered the House and since, ensuring that we protect vulnerable workers from exploitation and that employers should be held to account. He raises an important point. The Government will be doing all that we can to stop employers from exploiting immigrants who enter without leave or whose leave has expired. The practice not only undermines people who are already long-standing legal workers here, but is particularly relevant at a time when major Government contracts will be placed with companies competing to build, for example, the extra homes needed in the construction of the facilities for the Olympics. I will certainly raise the matter with Cabinet colleagues.

Richard Ottaway: As the Leader of the House said, the Baker report has been published and the Members Estimate Committee report is about to be published. In the light of Sir Christopher Kelly's comments in the report that he has published in his capacity as chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, would it not be sensible to invite him formally to comment on both reports before we debate them on 3 July? After all, he chairs the committee whose job it is to maintain standards in public life and his comments will add credibility to our debates.

Harriet Harman: That is a helpful suggestion. It would help the House's debate for Sir Christopher Kelly to have an opportunity to put forward his views on the proposals on which the House will decide. He will already have seen the Government's proposals and the Baker proposals on pay and pensions. When the Members Estimate Committee report comes out—and is made available in good time before the debate for hon. Members to consider it, table any amendments and reflect on it—it might be useful, without pre-empting colleagues on the MEC, formally to forward a copy to Sir Christopher Kelly. That way, if he wants to make any proposals, he can make them to the MEC, which would be better than his perhaps commenting on television afterwards.

Kelvin Hopkins: May I draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the excellent early-day motion 1830, which was tabled yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck)?
	 [ That this House recognises that Britain is suffering the effects of a housing affordability crisis; highlights new research by Shelter showing that two million households are being pushed to breaking point by unmanageable housing costs; notes that thousands of households are homeless or trapped in damp, dilapidated or overcrowded housing, because they are unable to afford to rent or buy a decent home; welcomes the launch of Shelter's Now is the Time campaign to make sure everyone has an affordable, decent place to call home; and calls on the Government to meet its commitment on building homes by 2020, ensure that enough social rented homes are built for those who need them most, protect people facing eviction and repossession or living in bad housing, and end the housing divide by making the housing system fairer for everyone. ]
	The motion deals with housing need and refers to the recent Shelter report, "Now is the Time". In view of the fact that house sales are now falling, which will undoubtedly put extra pressure on housing waiting lists, and the already serious shortage of housing to rent, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend for a long, serious debate on housing in all its aspects, which would deal with all the issues raised in the early-day motion? That debate should also look into the kind of policies that were successfully adopted by a previous Labour Government in the 1970s, in particular municipalising empty properties that are unsafe and not being sold, but which could in future be rented out to those on waiting lists.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend will know that the topic for debate this afternoon is eco-towns. I know that that is not exactly the point that he made, but the question is how we increase the housing supply. I will raise with my hon. Friends the housing need that he has identified and the important issues raised in that early-day motion and write to him, to let him know how we plan to ensure that the House has an opportunity to debate them.

Mark Pritchard: Could we have a debate on sex changes? I am not against sex changes, but given the number of sex changes, which are increasing in the United Kingdom year on year, the cost to the NHS, which has scarce resources, and the fact that sex changes are a matter of choice, is it not time that we had a debate about the issue? Many of my constituents do not have access to Alzheimer's drugs or cancer drugs, but neither of those diseases do they have through choice.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the situation. It is not a question of choice: if someone needs to have gender reassignment surgery, it is a question of necessity for them. If the hon. Gentleman wants to raise the issue further and ask questions of the relevant Minister, he can do so in the Opposition day debate next week on the NHS.

Philip Hollobone: There are just over 3,800 council tenants in the borough of Kettering. Some 27 per cent. of their weekly rate is siphoned off by the Treasury, and that is happening throughout the country, with 160 local council areas worse off and only 50 better off. Even worse, the Treasury is keeping a surplus of some £200 million of the money and not redistributing it into other social housing projects. Can we have a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Minister for Housing about why tenants in Kettering and elsewhere are effectively having to pay a stealth tax for living in local authority housing?

Harriet Harman: The Department for Communities and Local Government, together with the Treasury, is reviewing the operation of the housing revenue account, to ensure a simpler and more transparent system. However, I would hate the hon. Gentleman not to recognise the importance of the increases in housing benefit, which have helped his constituents among many others, and, above all, the fact that more people are able to be in a job and earn a living than previously—as well as the investment made in public housing across the board.

Graham Stuart: May I, through the Leader of the House, congratulate the Government on their new national strategy for carers and its many positive aspects, including additional funding for breaks and respite? However, can we have a debate on benefits for carers, so that we can discuss why the biggest issue of all was not addressed by that strategy—namely why so many carers live in poverty?

Harriet Harman: We made a commitment in the national carers strategy to keep the issue under review. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the strategy. It is important that there are good support services for families caring for older and disabled relatives. It is important, too, that there is flexibility at work for those who want to hold down a job but fulfil caring responsibilities. A survey that we undertook recently showed that only 9 per cent. of those caring for older or disabled relatives know that they have the right to request flexible working. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support tax credits, which help those who for whatever reason have to drop their hours to top up their income. However, we will keep the benefits question under review. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), gave evidence on that to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions this week.

Philip Davies: Given the Leader of the House's criteria for topical debates, could we have a topical debate on how our freedoms have been eroded by the Government over the past 11 years, whether they be our freedom of action, freedom of speech or other basic freedoms? Given that the Government appear to lack the courage to defend their position in the by-election in Haltemprice and Howden, surely we should have a debate in the House about a subject that has caught the mood of the British public.

Harriet Harman: This is not about the Government having the courage to defend their position; it is about the Government having the courage to defend the people of this country from terrorist attacks. I find it most implausible that the hon. Gentleman—or other hon. Members—should try to assume the mantle of defender of civil liberties, when he is opposed to the Human Rights Act 1998. Indeed, his party is pledged to repeal it, if—perish the thought—it ever gets into government.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Julian Lewis: Don't resign!

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I may go and help in Howden.
	Can we have a debate on regional development agencies? Recently, the South West of England Regional Development Agency sent an e-mail to south-west MPs informing them that it will change the way it operates in relation to inward and external investment. With the demise of the regional assemblies, there has been no consultation about the proposal at all. Indeed, we have been told that it is a fait accompli and that it will happen. The history of the South West of England Regional Development Agency is not good. At best, it has been dilatory in many of the things that it should do; at worst, it has been incompetent in a lot of cases. Can we therefore just talk about that?

Harriet Harman: We acknowledge that there is a gap in the accountability of regional development agencies to the House, and that is why the Prime Minister proposed, in "The Governance of Britain", that there should be regional committees to involve Members of the House in scrutinising the work of the regional development agencies. In a week or so, the Modernisation Committee will finalise its report on regional committees, and proposals will be brought forward to the House. There will therefore be a proper system of accountability for the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	European Union (Amendment) Act 2008
	St. Austell Market Act 2008

TOPICAL DEBATE

Eco-towns

Caroline Flint: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of eco-towns.
	Eco-towns offer us a unique opportunity not only to address the housing shortage and to tackle climate change but to trigger substantial economic growth across entire areas. I know that hon. Members will be familiar with the significant housing shortages that the country is facing. The fact is that we are all living longer, thankfully, and, as a result of the growing ageing population, far more people are living alone. That in itself contributes to a major shortfall in housing. It also means that, as we grow older and want to live more independently, we need services that can be provided in our communities, closer to or in our own homes. The people who will provide those services also need access to homes, particularly affordable homes, either to buy or to rent.

Philip Hollobone: Is not that just part of the story? Is not the need for housing in our country increasingly being driven by immigration, which is carrying on at an unchecked rate because of the policies of the present Government?

Caroline Flint: Of course, some of those hard-working migrants also contribute to building more houses in this country. Migration is a factor, but it is not the only factor. The point is that we have not built enough homes for the past 15 years or more. That is a recognised fact. Given this country's present population, we need to build more homes, including homes that are suitable for older people. Let us also recognise the hidden numbers of people who are not necessarily on housing waiting lists but who are living in overcrowded or unsuitable accommodation. Many young men and women, for example, have to live at home with their parents for longer because they cannot afford to get a foot on the property ladder. Let us talk about this in a reasonable manner and recognise that there is a real need to supply more homes of various shapes and sizes.

Nick Gibb: I understand what the Minister is saying and I agree with her. However, regarding the Ford eco-town proposal, she will be aware that Arun district council, in its core strategy document, has already identified and allocated land for 9,500 houses, of which between 30 and 40 per cent. will be social housing. The council has done what was required of it, and it is therefore wrong to suggest that the Minister needs to intervene to impose housing numbers on the council and to say where those houses should be.

Caroline Flint: We have discussed housing needs with local authorities and we will continue to do so. Of all the new homes built in the hon. Gentleman's area in the past year, only 4 per cent. were affordable. So, more houses are being built, but there is a challenge that cannot be ducked: are all the people whom hon. Members represent—those who can afford to buy and those who cannot—getting the chance to have a home that they can rely on, whether to rent or to buy?
	I will continue to work with local authorities, as will my colleagues in the Department, to ensure that we recognise the need for housing and that we engage in meaningful debate about where the houses should be. My point to all hon. Members—who are looking at proposals at the moment; this is no done deal—is that, if, at the end of this process, an eco-town is not built in their area, they will still have to face up to the challenge of meeting the need for housing in their community— [ Interruption. ] There are mutterings of "Of course" from those on the Opposition Benches, but the reality is that there are not enough houses being built in many parts of the country, including the areas of the proposed eco-towns, and there are certainly not enough for the people who cannot afford to get on to the property ladder or find homes to rent.

Graham Stuart: I entirely agree with the Minister about the challenge that people face in finding housing, and I recognise that the Government have invested in existing housing in order to raise standards, but will she explain why, under this Labour Government, so few houses have been built? Is she really confident that more top-down targets will deliver the change in housing provision that this country so badly needs?

Caroline Flint: I will look at the  Hansard record of that intervention, because it seemed to be a bit of a pushmi-pullyu question. The hon. Gentleman started off by acknowledging the need for housing but then went on to deny it.
	At national level, we provide comprehensive data on the housing needs of different communities across the country. For example, we can prove the gap in affordability, which varies around the country but which is increasingly becoming an issue not only for London and the south-east but for other regions, including my own. We can provide that overview, but we also negotiate with local authorities about how to meet the demand. We expect them to meet that demand, but to do so constructively. That is the way in which we work, and how we will continue to work.
	There are now 1 million more home owners than there were in 1997, but we have also had to make tough choices as a result of the legacy that we inherited of poorly maintained, and poorly invested in social housing stock, in order to get it up to standard. We have now reached the point at which we can seek to see what more we can do, and it would serve hon. Members well if, instead of nit-picking, they helped us to get on with that by supporting our discussions with local authorities on building more homes, including affordable homes.

Edward Garnier: What role will the infrastructure planning commission have in the development of eco-towns?

Caroline Flint: The eco-town programme will be subject to the full planning process at local level, and, as far as I am aware, there are no plans for the commission to have a role in relation to eco-towns.

David Howarth: I understand what the Minister is saying, but how does that fit in with the Hanley Grange proposal in Cambridgeshire, where the organisation responsible for delivering the very many housing proposals in Cambridgeshire—Cambridgeshire Horizons—is saying that this extra proposal will undermine the deliverability of the existing proposals, never mind the fact that the chosen site is so far out of town that no plausible public transport system can be used to reach it, which means that it will not be very eco?

Caroline Flint: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. As I make progress in my speech, I will address the process of engagement involved. He referred to Hanley Grange as a proposal, and that is what it is. We asked for expressions of interest, and about 57 bids came in. We drew up a shortlist of 15, after looking at a number of issues, including whether the bids had the potential—I stress the word "potential"—to move forward to the next phase. Every proposal has been thoroughly interrogated, including in terms of looking at existing developments in the areas concerned and how they might complement any new developments or, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, how they might hinder development in other areas.
	This is work in progress, and there are no done deals on any of these sites. In this part of the process—prior to the shortlist that I will announce later in the year, and prior to the applications—it is healthy to ensure that we scrutinise the bids and get as much community engagement as possible in order to clarify the matters that local people, local authorities and parliamentary colleagues are concerned about.

David Taylor: Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Flint: I will give way to my hon. Friend, who is the only Labour Member to intervene so far. After that, I shall definitely want to make some progress.

David Taylor: Many among the population have seen through the "vote blue, go green" slogan as a pretty fatuous one and they are also becoming suspicious of eco-labelling, which they see as an underhand way of building new towns in quick time to the detriment of the local environment and to the profit of property developers. Will the Minister thus defend the concept in the light of the widespread concern that exists in Leicestershire, the east midlands and, indeed, more widely?

Caroline Flint: Given the contribution of the built environment to our emissions, the challenge of tackling both housing supply and climate change must be faced. The eco-town programme allows us to see whether we can demonstrate within a whole town's development, and in the light of the skills, technology and innovation available, that this country can be a world leader in building the houses that we will need increasingly in the future. For example, we also face the challenge of meeting zero carbon emissions targets; we are working with the industry on that front and I think that eco-towns may offer something else to that process.
	The planning policy statement that we will produce in the next month will help to ensure that eco-towns are benchmarked against very high standards and it will also help local authorities that may be receiving submissions from developers who put "green" or "eco" in front of their applications to assess them. The process will allow us to develop the sort of tools that can be used better to define what eco and green really mean, what standards should apply to public transport and house building, what energy resources can be utilised and how waste can be better managed. That will be beneficial for the eco-town programme and it will add to the capacity of local authorities to make good decisions on other applications—not only now, but 10 or 20 years in the future.
	This is such a fast-moving area that we, too, will need to update as advances in technology are made. The work of my colleagues in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform in looking at energy supply renewables is another factor that plays into the opportunities that both small and large-scale developments can offer. This is an exciting programme. It does not sit on its own; it complements the very important work that we must do across the built environment—commercial, as well as domestic.
	As I said, in view of the challenges that we face, we have to find new ways of designing and building our homes. We have to cut carbon emissions from our housing and build homes that are resilient and adaptable to a changing climate. The need for more housing and more sustainable housing is why we have developed the concept of eco-towns; we believe that in some way—they are not the only solution—they will allow us to address both needs.
	I also see eco-towns as making a substantial contribution to overall economic development. Jobs and homes are important to families. Where people live is important, but having a job to provide the means to buy a home and enjoy a successful family life is equally important. I commend the work done in the west midlands by the Minister for the West Midlands, who carried out a jobs and homes road show last year that incorporated all those factors.
	Some eco-towns are proposed for areas where a lack of housing is effectively putting a handbrake on economic growth, preventing businesses in the community from expanding as far as they could. For example, I recently visited one of the locations and saw that the local market town was absolutely bursting at the seams. There was no more room for building housing or business units without jeopardising the character that makes that market town so special. The local authority says that an eco-town location in the vicinity will allow it to do a number of things. First, it will be able to expand economically and continue to have a thriving local economy. That development will also prevent urban sprawl around the market town, while at the same time provide the much-needed homes for the community. I am talking about the Manby site in Lincolnshire. I was very pleased to visit that area and I shall be visiting all the other locations in the next month or two.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Caroline Flint: I want to make a bit of progress before giving way again.
	The Hanley Grange proposal in Cambridge—I acknowledge the concerns about that site—would build 8,000 homes on the borders of what is known as the Silicon Fen, the region's flourishing high-tech sector, which currently faces extreme house affordability pressure.

Andrew Lansley: rose—

Caroline Flint: I will give way in few moments.
	Similarly, the Curborough proposal in Stafford would provide 5,000 homes on the doorstep of a business park that currently employs 3,000 people, but has room to expand to 7,000 jobs.

Andrew Lansley: I am sure that the Minister would acknowledge that we are already committed to building 42,500 new homes around Cambridge, of which 17,000 will be affordable homes. I am sure that she will not have seen—it was published only today—a study by Cambridge Healthcare and Biotech, conducted on its own initiative. It surveyed the companies with locations closest to the proposed site at Hanley Grange—in Babraham, Granta Park, Chesterford Park and the Human Genome campus of the Wellcome Trust. There were 20 respondents and I would like to quote the conclusion:
	"All respondents feel that a major housing conurbation adjacent to their business would make their location less attractive. Many have deliberately chosen their current location because of its rural nature. None believe Hanley Grange would help in their efforts to attract high calibre staff. Many believe that it will hinder their efforts."
	They need the homes, but they do not need an urban environment where they have built their companies. They need the transport there to be accessible, which it is—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Caroline Flint: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak in the debate. All those concerns—transport, the environment, the green spaces, the character of the buildings in these communities—will need to be considered, and not just at Hanley Grange. Again, however, I stress that there are no done deals here. We have an opportunity to set our sights as high as possible, particularly in respect of how we engage with communities. On that front, it is important to listen to people who are against these proposals or have significant concerns about them, but there are also the silent voices, often not heard, of the people who have no home or are living in very difficult circumstances.

Peter Luff: rose—

Caroline Flint: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but that will be the last intervention I shall take.

Peter Luff: I know that the right hon. Lady is very reasonable, so I am delighted to hear that she is coming to see the eco-town proposed in my constituency. When she does, she will realise that there is no hidden need. I freely admit that housing need exists, but it is in completely different areas—not where the town is proposed. When she comes, will she please co-ordinate her visit not just with Warwickshire county council and Stratford-on-Avon district council, but with Worcestershire county council and Wychavon district council, because, contrary to everything her Department says, the eco-town is in two district council areas, not just one?

Caroline Flint: At all the locations I have visited, I have met local authority representatives of all the affected councils. In order to ensure that I do not miss anyone out, when we get the details about the date on which I am visiting the hon. Gentleman's area, I will double-check with his office that nobody has been left off the list.
	Developers have an important role to play in making sure that people know what their plans are—it is their job to do that—how they would affect them, and what role local people can have in shaping the proposals. Rather than just say, "No, no, no", it would be worth engaging with what is on offer. As I look at the different schemes, I have to say that they offer exciting ways in which some of people's concerns can be addressed. I have already said that I have visited some of the proposed locations and I intend to visit them all during July and August. We are ensuring that every voice is heard—not just those with the time and resources, but those who are in desperate need of affordable housing.
	We have published a document, "Living a Greener Future", asking for views on the benefits and principles of eco-towns. We are asking people to tell us what they want and expect in terms of development standards, housing, green space, travel and the wider benefits they would like to see. At the same time, we are seeking views on the 15 shortlisted locations.
	The second phase of consultation will focus on the sustainability appraisal, which will run for three months, and the eco-towns policy statement that I mentioned earlier. The sustainability appraisal will be a detailed assessment of each of the locations, setting out the likely environmental, social and economic impact. As I said earlier, the eco-towns policy statement will set out how eco-towns will fit within the existing planning system and relate to existing local plans. Parliamentary colleagues raised in earlier interventions—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Grant Shapps: When the eco-town idea was first suggested, it involved just five eco-towns and it must have sounded a bit like motherhood and apple pie—who could argue against the idea of having more housing and making it environmentally sustainable? What a great idea. The problem is that there is almost nothing green left about those plans. They have descended into the kind of farce that we thought we had seen the last of with home information packs, but it has made its way into eco-towns.
	To prove that point, we need look no further than a couple of simple facts, which show the extent to which this is all now about spin rather than genuine housing. It goes like this: if—and it is a big if—this Government build all 10 of the eco-towns that they currently propose, that will create just a quarter of 1 per cent. of all the housing that they say needs to be built each year from 2016. On the basis of the 15 plans that they brought forward and a combination of the 10—

Caroline Flint: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Grant Shapps: I happily give way.

Caroline Flint: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have never said that eco-towns are the only solution to the housing needs in this country? Does he not accept, that where there are opportunities for developments of this kind, they can contribute? Also, the nature of the development allows us to do things on green energy and sustainable living that sometimes are not possible within an already built environment.

Grant Shapps: I entirely accept that it may be a good idea to have something that is called a sustainable eco-town community. My point is that what the Government have invented is not it. We know that for sure because when they started to spin their line about five and then 10 eco-towns, they initially said that they could get—these were the headlines in the newspapers—200,000 environmentally friendly eco-sustainable homes. However, when we look at the list of 15 and the list of any combination of 10, we see that we get to about 75,000 homes. Just 75,000, not 200,000. The Government say that, by 2016, they are going to build 240,000 homes a year, so we realise that 75,000 homes overall is a tiny drop in the ocean. So, first, we have the size and scale of the proposal, which start to make people suspicious.

Patrick Hall: The hon. Gentleman needs to be aware that thousands of my constituents are in serious housing need. What they may misunderstand from his comments today is that the Conservative party is opposed to addressing those needs.

Grant Shapps: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, his constituents need not draw that inference in any way, shape or form. The simple fact is that more homes can be produced by working with communities rather than by coming up with large, centrally-driven, Whitehall-driven, top-down, Soviet-style planning schemes from the centre. That is what this plan has come down to—all this fuss, bother and kerfuffle for just 75,000 homes, because it sounds like the Government are doing something green. In fact, they are not green at all.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman, with his facility for basic arithmetic, ought to be shadow Chancellor. He refers to 75,000 houses out of 3 million. That is not one quarter of 1 per cent. It is 2.5 per cent., which is a useful contribution. I do not deny the potential for eco-towns to contribute towards solving the housing shortage, but let us not belittle them by a factor of 10. Come on!

Grant Shapps: If the hon. Gentleman reads  Hansard, he will notice that I said that from 2016, when the eco-towns start to come on line, the figures add up. I would be happy to go through them with him, but either way I think we agree that this is a tiny figure: 75,000 out of—from 2016—2 million, even, is very little, but we have all this fuss and many green clothes being put on.

Caroline Flint: rose—

Grant Shapps: Let me continue with the point. All that suggests that there may be a problem, but the much deeper problem and much more serious concern that the Government should be addressing at this stage is the fact that those homes will not come on line until 2016.
	The Minister for Housing and her predecessor have said that, by 2016, all homes will be at sustainability code level 6. When all homes are at code level 6, they will be zero carbon. As every house will be zero carbon when the first eco-town homes come on stream, what, may I ask the Minister, whom I am happy to give way to, is the point of making a big fuss about building eco-towns? At that stage, all homes will in any case be green.

Caroline Flint: I really think that the hon. Gentleman just does not get it. This is not just about building houses, which is important; it is about whether there is a way to build a sustainable community with the infrastructure necessary to make that happen. People often complain about that when planning applications are submitted. Public transport, tackling waste and renewable energy supplies are all important to a greener, cleaner future. Given what he has said, if, after the shortlist is announced, some of those eco-towns go forward and win at the planning application stage, will he still be against them? That is what it sounds like.

Grant Shapps: So now we have it. This is not about building zero-carbon, sustainable communities; it is about experimentation with new technologies to see whether we can find new, greener ways to live. This is what is wrong with that approach: according to a speech made by the Minister earlier this week, it turns out that the new eco-town houses will not have to be built at sustainability code level 6. No, the greatest farce of all is the fact that they can be built at sustainability code level 3. When that happens, those eco-towns will be built at a lower environmental level than the houses that will in any case be built at the same time in 2016. I suggest to her that the entire project is now looking rather shabby to say the least.
	If the Minister does not agree about the minuscule nature of this grand plan and the fact that it will build very few homes, and if she does not agree that it will not be green because all homes will be more green than those are by the time they are built, perhaps I can tackle her on another issue that is causing considerable concern. It was said repeatedly that these eco-towns will contain up to 50 per cent. affordable housing. Then the Government said that that might be a bit tough, so made the figure one third. Then they said that the developers should aim for 30 per cent. Most recently, looking at the applications that have been submitted, we have learned that the affordable home element is just 26 per cent. In one development, the figure is just 10 per cent. affordable housing. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on how those eco-towns live up even to the original spin—

Caroline Flint: rose—

Grant Shapps: I gladly give way.

Caroline Flint: I make it clear that the eco-towns should offer a minimum of 30 per cent. and we would like that figure to rise. All the bidders are making proposals, so the whole point is to test them out and challenge them along the way. When I make a shortlist, I will be looking very closely at what is on offer.

Grant Shapps: Unfortunately, that has not cleared the matter up. The combined affordability element of the original 15 bids is 26 per cent., so unless we go back to those and reselect from them, how will we be able to increase the number or the percentage of affordable homes? I am not clear about how that can be done. Are we now saying that all this is going back to the drawing board and that people can resubmit their bids with higher proportions of affordability or are we saying that the figure cannot be higher than 26 per cent. because that is the level already contained in the 15 bids that the Minister is choosing from?

Nick Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Grant Shapps: I will certainly give way to the right hon. Gentleman, whose knowledge of these subjects may surpass that of the Minister.

Nick Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman is expressing concern about a reduction in the proportion of homes designated as affordable and social—clearly he thinks that is a mistake—what discussions has he had with the Mayor of London about the London plan and the appropriate element within it of affordable and social housing in London?

Grant Shapps: I do not want to stretch the boundaries of the debate, but I think that the fundamental difference between Conservative and Labour Members is simply that we believe it is important to build more homes—more homes of every kind in every way. It is no good coming up with small schemes that are spun so that they sound as though they are the answer to problems to do with green issues or the supply of homes; nor is it to come up with arbitrary numbers for affordability that may not in the end supply more homes overall.
	We know that the best way to improve affordability is to build more homes throughout the country, not just in the specific places and of the specific types that the Minister in Whitehall thinks are right. That brings us to the fundamental differences between us. In her opening comments, the Minister made it clear that the Government think that they are doing this because they wish to supply more housing to the marketplace, but for 11 years they have failed to build housing of any kind. The annual average over that period has been 145,000 new homes per year, compared with 176,000 in the preceding two decades.
	Moreover, the homes that have been built have been less affordable. Not once have the Government returned to the 1997 level of 28,000 affordable homes being built each year. Only 284 council homes were built last year, but that is the best that the Government have managed. They have never managed to equal the 1,500 plus affordable homes that the previous Conservative Government were still building in 1997.
	Given that the Government's record on housing is so lamentable, is it not somewhat surprising that they still come to this House with plans, policies, half-baked ideas and spin about eco-towns? They produce Green Papers and White Papers, all of which seem to forget the simple principle that they must work with local people and engage and incentivise local communities to come forward with plans that work for them. Such plans would fit with the desires of local populations, enhance their quality of life and improve the quality of housing locally. Without all that, these eco-towns will never be built.
	Although the Minister has said that that is exactly what the Government are doing, I would not mind putting a small wager on the number of eco-towns that will be built. To anyone who spends time taking a serious look at the project, it is obvious that there is very little chance that any of them will get that far.

Caroline Flint: I'll give you a tenner!

Grant Shapps: I hear the Minister offer me a tenner across the Dispatch Box.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If people are going to place bets, they should do so somewhere else, and not in the Chamber.

Grant Shapps: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are quite right. We shall see to this afterwards.
	I know that the Minister has had the same briefings that I have had, from people who know about house building. They have spent 30 or 40 years building large estates of 5,000, 10,000, 15,000, 20,000 or 30,000 houses, and they have told us both that it would be impossible to get the homes built in the time scale that the Government are talking about—that is, by 2016 and 2020. With the best will in the world—and even if all the stops are pulled out, no one goes for a judicial review and it is plain sailing from day one—the planned homes cannot be built on time.
	For that to happen, it would require a lorry delivering material to turn up once every 20 seconds at sites throughout the country. The plan is logistically impossible, but the problem is worse than that. Earlier, the Minister gave my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) a sort of half reassurance about the role of the infrastructure planning commission. She said that it would have nothing to do with easing the path of the eco-town developments, and we take her at her word that the commission will not necessarily change the way that the eco-towns are planned and delivered. However, we know—because it is on the face of the legislation—that the commission will certainly have an impact on how roads, sewerage and water and energy supplies are put in place around the eco-towns.
	Therefore, it is not the case that the new infrastructure planning commission will have no influence at all on the development of the eco-towns. It most certainly will, but the Minister seems to believe that it will ride to the rescue and ensure, through the back door and by means of planning sewers, roads and the rest of it, that the eco-towns are built on time. I am afraid that there is very little chance of that happening.
	The eco-town project must have sounded like a great idea when five of them were originally announced—so good, in fact, that the Prime Minister could not resist enlarging the number to 10 in his conference speech last year.

Andrew Lansley: Last July, the Prime Minister made his initial announcement that five eco-towns were to be built, but the first and only one that he identified was to be at a place called Oakington barracks in my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, an area now called Norstowe. My hon. Friend has said that none of the eco-towns can be delivered within the planned time scale, so does he share my surprise—astonishment, even—that the Norstowe project is at the outline planning application stage now? With a certain amount of Government support, it could be the first eco-town to be built, and within the time scale contemplated for the others.

Grant Shapps: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. The extraordinary thing about the project is that the Government's management and approach have been so incompetent that the eco-town to which he refers has been taken off the list entirely, in favour of another one nearby. The easy delivery of one eco-town that could have gone ahead has been deliberately stripped out of the plans, for reasons that perhaps the Minister will be able to explain when she comes to visit the sites in question. The eco-town project must have sounded like a great idea, but it has not survived investigation or being put under the spotlight.

Peter Luff: My hon. Friend is illustrating, as did my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), that this is a back-of-the-envelope idea that has not been properly thought through. Case study three in the consultation document is about Vauban in Germany. The Government have said that it has 500 residents, but in reality it has 5,000. It is by far the largest example of a so-called eco-town, but it is really an eco-suburb, being an extension of Freiberg and a 4km tram ride from the centre of that town. Should not eco-towns be eco-suburbs? Vauban is right, but the Government's eco-town proposals are wrong.

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is right, and he has a very clear grasp of the matter because an eco-town is planned in his constituency at a place that has been renamed Middle Quinton but is really called Long Marston.
	The problem is how these eco-towns can be made to work. I represent two new towns, and I know that they have to be of a certain critical size. Welwyn Garden City works because it has 30,000 people, but people cannot live, work and shop in towns with only 4,000, 5,000 or 6,000 inhabitants. They have to jump into some form of transport—often their cars—to go somewhere, and that is not a sustainable form of life. Some of the eco-towns are planned for locations where there is no transport other than the car, so one wonders what the Government can possibly be thinking of.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that one justification for the Prime Minister's announcement of these eco-towns is that they would deliver a high level of affordable housing? Whatever economic assumptions were made by the Prime Minister last July, the building of new houses has come to a virtual stop, and there has been a decline in the housing market. Will not both those factors make the delivery of the eco-towns very much more expensive for taxpayers than was the case when the Prime Minister made his initial announcement?

Grant Shapps: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and rather suspect that he has identified why the plan is falling apart. The eco-towns are no longer financially viable, and that is driving much else of what is happening. The Minister for Housing has said that they do not need to be built at sustainability code level 6 and that we can get away with code level 3, but that is because the developers are saying that the extra £30,000 on the price tag that would bring the houses up to level 6 means that they cannot build the homes to the planned price and cost.
	What seemed like a good plan has fallen apart. It is time for the Government to take stock and admit that the embarrassing stories about eco-towns that appear every day in the newspapers have some substance. The Government are going about eco-towns much as they have gone about other policies. Before they create HIPS mark 2 with their eco-town policy, they should withdraw it.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions, in the hope that as many people as possible are able to make a contribution. However, although I have no wish to stifle debate, the number of contributions may be restricted if we get many lengthy interventions. I call Mr. Patrick Hall.

Patrick Hall: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I point out that I am a member of the Committee considering the Finance Bill? If I am called to the Committee and have to leave before the end of the debate, I hope you will accept that I mean no discourtesy to the House. However, I hope that that will not happen.
	The area to the south of Bedford and Kempston is famous for inspiring John Bunyan, who called his fictitious area the "Slough of Despond". That may be a little unfair, certainly to the people who live there today, but perhaps it was prescient. What John Bunyan did not know was that, centuries on, the area would become home to the Fletton brick industry. The closure of the remaining brick kilns in February this year ended the supply of numerous jobs that had attracted workers from many parts of the world, but it also ended the pollution associated with the industry. However, the kilns left a legacy of despoiled land and huge pits in the ground.
	In recent years, serious attempts have been made to regenerate Marston Vale. Much of the area is attractive, consisting of farmland and a number of pretty villages, but as it is part of the Milton Keynes and South Midlands growth area it has already been designated as an area for housing growth. The plan is to build about 19,500 houses in the Bedford growth area. Some 10,000 are committed, and a few have already been built. Other significant developments that are under way, some at the commitment stage and others at the "serious ideas" stage, include the improvement of junction 13 of the M1, the dualling of the A421 and the Thameslink programme, an important rail investment programme that will benefit Bedford and the surrounding area. A new railway station is also planned. I am pleased to note the revival of discussion of a possible east-west rail link across the country, which would go through Marston Vale and would be useful to Bedford.

Nadine Dorries: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Patrick Hall: I am sorry, but I do not have time. I have been given eight minutes to deal with issues about which I could speak for 80 minutes. I mean no discourtesy.
	The National Institute for Research into Aquatic Habitats has been given planning permission to locate in an exhausted brick pit. New jobs will result. The proposed Bedford-Milton Keynes waterway is being backed by active local people who have formed a trust. In the Forest Centre, despoiled land is being converted into an attractive leisure location. This is an area with tremendous potential, which has considerable significance for Bedfordshire and for the county town of Bedford in particular.
	The concept of the eco-town is relevant to the delivery of developments that are at the planning stage, perhaps rather more ambitiously and with higher standards that would otherwise be the case. The Conservative party seems very exercised about the term "eco-town", but all that it really means is good planning. Is any Member going to say that he or she opposes good planning? If the Conservatives are in favour of good planning, let them be in favour of notching up the standard a bit more. What we need is a strategic master plan.
	As I understand it, in the context of my constituency and the county in which I live, the eco-town concept is all about a strategic approach, as opposed to the approach that we have adopted too often since the second world war. Local communities are whipped up into opposing any new growth and development—that is happening now in Bedfordshire—and then what happens? The development of housing estates is allowed on appeal. We have seen that happen time and again, with poor planning and without the necessary infrastructure. Housing estates have been tacked on to towns and villages, putting existing populations under considerable stress. We can and must do better. We must learn from past mistakes and adopt a measured approach to planning—a master plan approach—rather than whipping up ridiculous campaigns based on ignorance and fear. Marston Vale and Bedford deserve that.
	We are talking not just about higher energy-efficiency standards but about schools, shops, jobs and—especially important—affordable housing. There are 2,600 and nearly 3,000 people on the housing waiting lists in the Bedford Borough council and Mid-Bedfordshire respectively, and there are many other people in housing need who do not appear on the lists. The number of affordable houses being built to meet those people's needs is totally inadequate: 160 new units have been built per year in Bedford, and half that number in Mid-Bedfordshire.
	The DCLG document "Eco-towns: Living a greener future" suggests that at least 2,000 affordable homes could be provided in Bedford and Marston Vale. I think that that ambition needs to be notched up, because more than 2,000 homes are needed. I think we should aim for about 5,000. Inadequate housing choice is a serious local problem in Bedford as well as in Mid-Bedfordshire, as the figures show. It is one of the most significant issues raised in my case load.
	Similarly, we have heard that because unemployment is low in the area, there is no need for jobs for the future. That is absolute nonsense. Serious economic analysis of the requirements in Bedfordshire shows that although wages there are above average, the better paid and more highly skilled jobs are taken by those who commute to London, Leicester and other locations to the north. Local jobs tend to be low-skilled and low-paid: warehouse jobs, for instance. We desperately need for the future a range of—

Nadine Dorries: Jobs.

Patrick Hall: —adequate, better-paid—

Nadine Dorries: Jobs.

Patrick Hall: —skilled jobs, which would also provide a more sustainable way of living than having to rely on commuting.
	I hope that the House, and local communities and councillors, will want to make progress on this matter, whatever we choose to call it. I hope that Members and others will concentrate on good planning rather than becoming exercised about the label. What we need from the Minister as soon as possible is some certainty and clarity. The number of proposed new houses has been quoted as between 14,000 and 30,000. We need to have more precise information, so that communities can work on the basis of that knowledge and discuss their future in a measured way, while being properly consulted. That will help to raise standards in an area that has been neglected for far too long, to increase environmental capabilities, and to meet housing needs that have also been neglected for far too long.
	I see this as a positive opportunity, not as something to be negative about.

Lembit �pik: I am pleased that we heard more from the Minister than we have heard before about the strategy behind the eco-towns. I shall say more about that shortly, but first let me praise the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) for his entertaining, interesting and passionate speech. He is a good speaker and a good friend, and indeed a fellow pilot. I think that, in the interests of consistency, he and I should be the first private pilots in Britain to power our aircraft entirely on biofuels. In the spirit of friendship I shall let him go first, and if his aircraft works properly I shall follow suit.
	What concerns me slightly is that although the Conservatives are good at complaining, they are not very clear about what they would do themselves. Perhaps we shall hear more from the hon. Gentleman's colleagues when they catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	As the hon. Member for Bedford (Patrick Hall) suggested, by referring to eco-towns the Government risk being accused of gimmickryreasonably, in my view. Every new house that we build should be eco-friendly. The Minister was honest when she said that the aim of the eco-town strategy was really to address the housing shortage and promote economic growth. I agree with that but, as has already been said, if we are to have a carbon-neutral Britain we must recognise that the overwhelming majority of homes that will be inhabited in 2050 have already been built. I assume the Minister meantand I think it a useful clarificationthat what are being called eco-towns are, in effect, primarily an effort by the Government to use innovative technology to deal with the housing crisis.

Grant Shapps: The houses need to be code 6 rather than code 3.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman is right. There is a contradiction in the conditions established in the eco-town project. If the Government are to use eco-towns as probing technology, the houses need to be code 6 rather than code 3. The Government need to show more courage in that respect.
	I suspect that the Government have been rather ambitious in this context. At present there are 12 carbon-neutral homes, all of them built by Barratt. That means that achieving the Government's carbon-neutrality target by 2016 would require a 200 million per cent. increase in zero-carbon housing stock. I look forward to hearing how the Government intend to achieve that 200 million per cent. increase. I hope they do, but it is a tall order.
	In addition, rather than concentrating on new build in greenfield sites, what about the 675,000 empty homes in England alone? Why build on greenfield sites when we could find a cheaper solution, even if we zero-carbon retrofit those houses? The public consultation has, in the view of many, been a near sham. It is not just a question of middle-class nimbyism accusationsthat would be unreasonable on this occasion. It is a fact that many people from across the social strata have complained that these proposals have not been thought through. Fifteen thousand local people signed a petition against the Penbury site in Leicester. I declare an interest, as it is to be built on Leicester airport. I am very concerned that if that is done I will not be able to visit my mum. I offer the Minister the opportunity to fly with me, and perhaps with the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield, to have a look at the glories of Leicester airport and what will be lost if it is built upon.

Edward Garnier: A correction: it is not in Leicester, but in rural Harborough.

Lembit �pik: I apologise to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has my full support, for relocating his constituency into the city of Leicester.
	The Government do not seem to have understood the importance of vehicles in the new town proposals, because unless there is to be some utopian change in public transport, it seems almost inevitable that these towns will prompt a massive increase in driving rather than an improvement in eco-friendly commuting.

David Howarth: Is my hon. Friend aware that the only land owner interested in the Hanley Grange site is Tesco? When Tesco was challenged on the public transport problems of the site, it apparently suggested that the residents of the new town be charged for leaving the new town. That is a most extraordinary proposal: being trapped in Tesco-town. It is becoming more like The Truman Show every day.

Lembit �pik: I was aware of that, but only because my hon. Friend told me a few minutes ago. It is a good line and if this were I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue, he would get an extra point. But I still have the Floor. On that point, it looks as though the economic potential for profit making from these eco-towns has not been lost on large developers. That is fair enough, but once again it underlines the reality, which is that this is not about the environment but about securing extra housing to resolve the housing shortage.
	I mentioned the Penbury example and we will probably hear more about that when the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) speaks. I am pleased that the Minister goes to listen directly to the concerns. She said that she would visit all the locations. I welcome that; it is a helpful commitment.
	Where do we go from here? First, all new housing should be eco-friendly. I am in discussions with Powys county council to see what I can do to make my house code 6. It is very expensive, but unless we make the investment in technology now we will not achieve any of the Government's environmental targets for housing. Secondly, we have to be careful that despite the credit crunch and the looming housing crisis in economic terms, the environmental commitments that the Government have made on our behalf, rightly, are not abandoned. In this sense, I am concerned that we could have code 3 houses in what sounds like a code 6 project. I do not really understand how the Minister can reasonably use the phrase eco-town if some of those houses are to be rather worse than what Barratt is building already.

Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. There are currently only two code 3 houses[Hon. Members: No.] If I could finish, please. Therefore, our aspiration for code level houses is very important. These towns will develop over time, so other building regulations or conditions will come into play. However, they have to demonstrate in their plans that they will be zero-carbon across the whole development. That is very important in looking at the definition of zero-carbon and how the energy supply will contribute to the built environment of the homes we create. That is a practical and important matter that we are discussing with the building industry.

Lembit �pik: I am pleased to hear the point about carbon neutrality. That is something I have been looking at as well. I hope that on another occasion we can discuss in more depth what it means to achieve code 6 and whether it is reasonable to have entire communities like that, or whether we should set the individual targets for individual houses to achieve code 6.

Grant Shapps: Has the hon. Gentleman, like me, gone round the country visiting the many code 3 houses that are currently being built?

Lembit �pik: There are many code 3 houses being built, but it is not that difficult to get to code 4. It gets challenging after that. On another occasion, we should perhaps have a debate about this very question: code 6 for an entire community or for individual houses?
	My concern is that we might lose the commitment to the environment because of the pressures on the economy. I implore the Minister to give an assurance, now or later, that the Government will not throw out the challenging and, let's face it, expensive objective of a zero-carbon Britain. Barratt is suffering the greatest-ever decrease in orders, even worse than in 1990. Nevertheless, it is a willing and co-operative partner in the grand project of fulfilling our environmental commitments.
	I would hate for the first casualty of any potential recession to be the commitment that we should all embrace: that of having a zero-carbon country. To engineer a climate for building while destroying our climate for living would be something for which our successors would not forgive us. The Government are on trial to see how serious they are about their environmental commitments on housing. If they do well, they will have the co-operation of the Liberal Democrats. If they do not, it will be disappointing to see a noble intention descend into an uncompleted gimmick.

Nick Raynsford: First, I draw attention to the interests declared in my entry in the Register.
	The case for new towns as part of overall housing provision is a very strong one. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing made the case for the need for additional housing provision to satisfy the problems of under-provision for many years and to ensure that the full range of people, including those needing affordable and social housing, will be catered for. We are going through an extremely difficult economic situation, to which the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) referred. I say to him that by the time the eco-town programme is coming on stream, I hope that we will be out of that recession and that the approach that the Government are adoptingrightly trying to ensure mixed communities with elements of affordable and social housing as well as market housingshould ensure the successful implementation of the programme in what we hope will be a revived market.
	During the lifetime of the Government, there has been an important shift in the focus of housing development towards brownfield sites and inner-city regeneration. I applaud that. It has been a success, as I can see in my constituency: on the Greenwich peninsula we are in the process of building a new community that is of exactly the same size as an eco-town and will have exactly the same qualities of very high design and environmental standards. It will be a mixed community and an exemplar of good development.
	That is splendid, but development just in our existing cities, avoiding any further development on greenfield sites, will not be sufficient. There will be a need for some greenfield development. The question is how we plan that and whether we do it well and cleverly to ensure that those developments are attractive and sustainable, or whether we follow the pattern of the Conservative party in government of leaving it to the market. We saw the consequences of that throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, when there was a rash of badly planned developments of very low density on greenfield sites, making profligate use of land without sufficient numbers of people to sustain local bus services or local shops and thereby ensuring that they were not sustainable. That is exactly what we should avoid, and the Conservative party should be ashamed of its record in government. The Conservatives should be more constructive than the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) about the Government's plans to ensure a more intelligent approach towards new housing development.
	As a country, we have a very distinguished record in encouraging high-quality planned developments, both in the UK and overseas. The post-war generationthe 1940s generationof new towns set exemplary standards for better housing for people who were being moved out of very crowded city slums. In the 1960s, there was a further generation of new towns. Although they were not all successful, a number of highly successful, attractive new communities were created. I am thinking not only of towns such as Milton Keynes, but of towns that were expanded, such as Peterborough and Northampton. There is a lesson in that, to which I shall return in referring to urban extensions.
	Since those successes, our planners and urban developersour expertshave been contributing internationally to planned new settlements throughout the world; indeed, they are in the lead in many parts of the world. For example, Arup is developing the Dongtan eco-city in China to very high standards. It is, thus, extraordinary that a country that has that proud record of new town development and great expertise in the field has not designated any new towns since the 1960s. No attempt has been made since then to designate new urban developments. One might say that the Thames Gateway has been an urban developmentI could make a case for it being a new citybut, with that one exception, there has been no planned new development in this country. It is entirely logical that we should be planning some new developments, to exemplary standards, to ensure that we meet the full range of housing need in ways that demonstrate that good development is not necessarily a blot on the landscape and can enhance the environment and create a fine living environment for people. In the same way as that is being done in my constituency in an urban environment, it can be done elsewhere too.
	I do not agree with all aspects of the implementation of the eco-town proposals, and I shall highlight one or two areas where I think the Government need to have further thoughts. However, I applaud their positive approach, and I contrast it with the negative carping approach that we have heard from the Conservatives. They are only too willing to criticise, to pick holes, and to try to mock and make fun, but they are not willing to make any sensible, concrete proposals to improve living conditions.
	In an intervention, I raised with the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield the question of affordable housing quotas. He had expressed concern that a reduction in the affordable housing quota was expected in eco-towns, so I asked him about his discussions with the Mayor of London. He was notably silent on that. We know that the Mayor of London is seeking to reduce the affordable and social housing content of housing in London. If the hon. Gentleman was serious and responsible about such housing, he would be telling the Mayor of London not to do that and to ensure that the London plan commitment to affordable and social housing is maintained. In the absence of the hon. Gentleman's doing that, no one will give any credence to him on this issue.
	In conclusion, I shall turn to the areas where I think the Government have not got things absolutely right. It was a mistake to make an invitation to tender, as that allowed a number of entirely unsuitable proposals to be made. Some of them risk damaging the concept of eco-towns, because they were not proposals for eco-towns; they were old development plans that were simply pulled out of the back drawer and attached to a green label to try to make them attractive. I am pleased to say that the Government have recognised that. They are now being far more selective in their approach, but I think that they made a mistake at the start.
	Secondly, it was a mistake to focus only on freestanding new developments and not to consider the scope for urban extensions. Sustainable urban extensions have a role to play. Indeed, as I have highlighted, in the 1960s generation of new towns, the development of Peterborough and Northampton involved highly successful extensions of existing towns, rather than new developments such as Milton Keynes, which was a greenfield city. We can and should take both approaches, and there is scope for sustainable urban extensions as part of this programme.
	Thirdly, it was foolish to say that there should be one eco-town in every region, because they should be located where they are most needed and where they are most likely to work. The Government have rightly moved away from that approach now. A deplorable article in  The Sunday Times, which showed all the faults of a clever journalist who makes fun copy but makes no logical sense, criticised the fact that three of the possible eco-towns are in the south-east region, on the grounds that the south-east region is already full up. The south-east region is the one place in the country where there are the greatest pressures, so we must be intelligent about how we respond to them. We need to be selective and to focus eco-towns where they are required.
	Finally, the Government have made a mistake in the lack of clear governance arrangements and financing to ensure successful implementation over a period of years. The earlier new town programme had a development corporation framework and a funding stream. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider those issues, but I applaud the Government's general approach.

Edward Garnier: I welcome the final few paragraphs of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), because if he were to apply the principles that he has just set out to the site in my constituencythe Co-operative Wholesale Society calls it Penbury, but everyone else calls it Stoughtonthe Government would simply not plonk a town of 40,000 people down in the middle of rural Harborough. The sustainable urban extension idea, which he mentioned, is a good one. Where does the county council suggest that such an extension should go? It suggests the north and west of the city of Leicester, where the infrastructurethe motorways and the airportexists and the employment is required.
	In my constituency, 748 people are unemployed. The Co-op, which is the main driver behind the proposal, originally said that it wanted to bring 12,000 new jobsit now gives a figure of 14,000to the area, but although that is doubtless a wholly altruistic intention, this is not a place where the jobs are needed. If one wants to supply jobs to the east midlands, I suggest that the middle of rural Harborough is not the place to do it.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) for paying regular visits to my constituency and for his views on the suitability of that particular site. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), who speaks from the Front Bench, has also visited the site, and his opinions on its suitability are well known locally and have much approval.
	Today, I received a written answer from the Minister for Housing stating:
	I am currently planning a programme of visits to all the shortlisted eco-town locations over the next couple of months, and this will include the eco-town site at Harborough. At least two officials in my Department have visited the proposed site.
	I only wish that I could have a copy of their notes on the meeting and their conclusions, because I suspect that, having been to the site, they will have realised that it is not the greatest place on which to dump a town of 40,000 people.
	The site is convenient because the Co-op owns about 5,000 acres and attached to it are about 400 acres belonging to English Partnerships. However, it is all farm land, but for the runway strip, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. The site is not genuine brownfield land. The only genuine brownfield land that can be attached to the site is the very popular airstrip, which is used by an aero club and by business men flying in and out of Leicester in their small private aeroplanes.
	It would be absurd to treat the site as brownfield land, because it is not a disused Royal Air Force station in the proper sense of the word and, so far as English Partnerships is concerned, it is not a disused hospital. It is farm land for as far as the eye can see, and using it for an eco-town would be outrageous, as I hope the Minister will agree when she visits. I hope that she will give us proper notice of her intention to visit the site, so that we can bring the relevant people to meet hera number of people would like to exchange views with her about the site.
	There are 62,700 hectares of brownfield land in this country, of which 26,000 are suitable for housing. At a density of 40 homes per hectare, that would provide more than 1 million new homes. If approved, eco-towns will, as we learnt a little earlier, supply only about 75,000 new homes. That is a very small percentage of the requirement for new homes. When the Government consider the site in my constituency, which I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), I urge them carefully to consider what they think brownfield land is and whether the site is appropriate for any development, let alone for a so-called eco-development.
	I appreciate that it is tempting to go for the easy shot, with one large landowner. It is a complete coincidence that the Co-operative bank happens to be providing the Labour party with an overdraft of 13.5 million. That is not relevant to this issue, but it is causing misunderstandingshall we sayin my constituency and I hope that it can be put well aside.
	In relation to the effect that the proposed development will have on the rest of my constituency and the city of Leicester, I understand that the transport spokesman for the city said that it would support the scheme if it could have a tram system. However, the cost of an 8 mile tramline in Edinburgh will be some 750 million, or 1,500 an inch. To achieve the same result between my constituency and Leicester5 or 6 milesit would cost 500 million just to build the tramway, and would not take into account the compensation costs for houses that would have to be knocked down along the route. It would cost some 1,750 per inch. The area is already congested with road traffic, and to relieve pressure an expensive road would be needed from the site to the M1a distance of about 20 milesand that would cost the thick end of 1 billion.
	Time is short, but I have much to say on this issue. I have said it before in an Adjournment debate on 29 January and in Westminster Hall 10 days ago. Extracting facts from the Government and the developers is like pulling teeth. It is time that the Government expressed themselves coherently and gave the public in my area the real facts about what they intend to do to us, because at the moment there is massive uncertainty, massive disappointment, and massive oppositionnot to eco-towns, but to this particular development.

Peter Soulsby: It is a pleasure to follow my neighbour, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), many of whose concerns I share. Before I mention those concerns, however, I wish to say a few words of welcome for the concept of eco-towns. I am provoked to do so by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), who expressed again today the Tories' concern to pay lip service to the need to build more houses while opposing specific schemes whenever they emerge, whether under the banner of eco-towns or not, thus preventing such development from taking place.
	The hon. Gentleman was very negative about the percentage contribution that eco-towns would make to overall housing need and, at the same time, inconsistently concerned about the impact of lorries and the construction involved in building the eco-towns. The hon. Gentleman revealed the Tories' true attitude on this issue.
	Eco-towns as a concept are to be welcomed, and they will make a significant contribution to housing need. Most hon. Members hold surgeries and so will be aware of the desperate housing shortage up and down Britain. Eco-towns will contribute to meeting the needs of young families, the need for affordable housing and, especially, the need for social housing for rent. However, eco-towns are even more important because of the opportunity they provide to show how sustainable communities can be developed. It is not only the individual houses and the codeone hopes that they go beyond code 3but the opportunity to develop communities and consider issues such as waste, water supply, the disposal of sewage, the provision of community facilities and, especially, transportation within communities. That goes beyond the standard to which individual houses are built.
	We should welcome the opportunityas previous generations did with garden cities and new townsto showcase the best of development by responding to the needs of climate change and experimenting, to pick up the word used by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield. We should be proud to experiment, and I welcome eco-towns for that reason.
	Having made those positive comments, I must say that I share many of the concerns of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough about the Penbury proposal. It raises issues that will be equally applicable to other eco-town areas. It is clear that the proposers of the scheme have not yet demonstrated that sufficient employment will be provided in the area to meet the needs of the population that will be drawn there, without it becoming merely a dormitory town for the nearby city of Leicester.
	Nor have they yet produced credible plans for transportation. No matter how much employment is contained within the area, many people will want to travel into Leicester and, with the A6 and A47 already overcrowded, that would exacerbate the problems. It will not be enough for the Penbury developers, or those elsewhere, to hope that some local authority or other agencysuch as the Governmentwill provide funding for a tram scheme, which would be very expensive, to provide a solution to the problem posed by what are at the moment incredible proposals.
	The third area of concern is the potential impact that the Penbury scheme would have on the regeneration of Leicester and the existing proposals for development elsewhere in the central Leicester area. There is a real prospect that the Penbury scheme will draw investment from brownfield sites in Leicester and elsewhere and will have a significant detrimental effect on the regeneration of that city.
	My final concern is that, if the scheme were to go forward through the normal planning process, it will significantly exclude the major area that will be most affected, which is of course Leicester. The proposed developers are working closely with the city authorities, but were the proposals to go just through the standard processes, there would be real concerns about the impact on Leicester and how the local authority could continue to be actively engaged in the process of development.
	In conclusion, I welcome eco-towns if they are to be truly sustainable communities. I welcome the Minister's process of engagement with local communities and the prospect of eco-towns providing affordable housing and social housing for rent. However, those who propose Penbury and, I guess, other similar developments still have several difficult questions to answer. Until we have satisfactory answers, we cannot say that the Penbury proposals, or those for other eco-towns, would be acceptable.

Nadine Dorries: It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Bedford (Patrick Hall) describe a Bedford that I failed to recognise. However, as I wish to keep my remarks short so that my colleagues can speak, I shall not rebut the comments he made about transportation, the need for homes, the location for the proposed development, the lack of available jobs or the lack of growth in the area. I recognise the need for social housing in his constituency and in mine, but I suggest that people do not want to travel from Bedford to Marston Vale when there is no transportation and no jobs for them to go to. Instead of having 20,000 homes miles from where anybody else lives and where there is no opportunity for employment, we should look at regenerating areas in both constituencies, which already have good transport links, doctors, schools, shops and employment. The homes should be built in those areas, instead of having an eco-town on the outskirts of both constituencies.
	The Minister came to visit my constituency on Monday and we are very grateful for that. If there had been more extensive and in-depth consultation with local residents, the Minister might not have experienced the welcome that she did. People are very angry, and I think that the Minister gathered that. We did not know about the Minister's visitmy office was informed at 4.55 pm on Friday

Caroline Flint: That is not true.

Nadine Dorries: It is absolutely true. We received a telephone call to say that the Minister would be visiting on Monday afternoon at 1 o'clock. I was promptly also told that I would not be invited to the meetingswith the developers who are to build on the proposed site and with local councillors and representatives of the local authoritiesas they were private. However, the hon. Member for Bedford was invited to my constituency for that meeting. Another phone call quickly changed thatI hope that none of my hon. Friends ever has such an encounter. Thankfully, it was sorted out and I attended the meeting.
	I am sure that the Minister, like me, was perhaps slightly unimpressed with the proposals put forward by the developers. I was looking for a vision, but all we got was the story of a proposal that did nothing to inform us about how the properties and developments would qualify for the eco credential. There was nothing eco about the proposals.
	The town in Marston Vale will include 20,000 homes for about 40,000 residents. There are no new jobs, as we have zero unemployment in the area. One reason that I championed the Center Parcs proposal was to mop up the 1,300 job vacancies that we had. As the mayor of Bedford points out, he has brownfield sites all over Bedford and no employers queuing up to build on them.
	It would be true to say that we have almost zero growth in the area and 20,000 new homes mean that 40,000 new people will get into their cars and commute into London along the M1, but the M1 widening scheme has been halted and put on the back burner while it is reconsidered. The same is happening with the rail networks. The Minister informs us that there will be an east-west rail network, but a Transport Minister says that that is still under discussion. Two Departments have different stories about what will happen to the east-west link.
	It is not just about the jobs. This eco-town will completely surround and swamp local settlements. Local people do not want that. They have an absolute right to say what should happen to their local environment, how it should function and look and whether they should have these 20,000 homes, which they feel are landing out of the sky right on top of their settlements.
	There are no available jobs in the area so people will have to commute to London and will get into their cars. What is sustainable about 40,000 people having to travel 50 miles into London? There are also problems with the infrastructure and the schools. We have good schools in Bedfordshire already, which are looking to use the Government's legislation to expand and to grow to meet the needs of the areas that they serve. Will we see huge numbers of schools built to meet the needs of those 20,000 homes? I have heard nothing about education or health needs being met. We have terrific problems with Bedford hospital, which is struggling to survive and to serve the community at the moment. How on earth will it take on another 40,000 residents in the neighbouring constituency?
	Some of my colleagues have not had a chance to speak to the Minister, and I had a chance to speak to her on Monday, so I merely want to make my four points again. Local people are unhappy. We do not have an unemployment situation in Bedfordshire. We do not have the infrastructure to support a new town. The transportation is not only far from satisfactory, but entirely unsatisfactory to meet the needs of the proposal.

Nick Gibb: The proposed Ford eco-town is a 350 hectare site on which developers propose to build 5,000 houses on ancient and beautiful Sussex countryside that is valued by my constituents in Littlehampton, Middleton-on-Sea, Felpham and Bognor Regis. That is why it is opposed by Arun district council and all the town and parish councils in the area, and why 1,500 people marched on Saturday 7 June against the proposal. The site is 87 per cent. greenfield land and the majority of the remaining 13 per cent. is farmland in the curtilage of the airfield, which is why it is technically regarded as a brownfield site.
	What has concerned me most about the proposal is the poor ethics of the construction company, Wates Developments, which is part of the Wates Group. The introductory section of its prospectus for the eco-town states on page 3:
	Ford Airfield is a 360 hectare site comprising brownfield land between Littlehampton, Bognor Regis and Chichester.
	That sentence clearly conveys the impression that the 360 hectare site is made up of brownfield land when it is notit is 87 per cent. greenfield.
	I am also concerned that the Government are setting a new precedent in planning by publishing planning policy statements that are location specific, thereby removing any local discretion over the siting of new developments. Planning policy statements have always been issues of general principle and not diktats from central Government about particular developments.
	My final point is about the fact that the Government have said that Arun district council needs to meet its social and housing needs. It is not true that it has not. Some 13,000 houses are being built in Felpham and Berstead, 30 per cent. of which are affordable, and Arun district council's core strategy preferred option documents have allocated sufficient land to provide at least 9,500 houses, of which between 30 and 40 per cent. will be social housing.
	I hope that Ford will not appear on the final shortlist of eco-towns.

Nick Herbert: I add my concerns to those expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). The tiny village of Ford lies in my constituency and is shortlisted to have an eco-town with 5,000 houses. That would make it by far the largest settlement in my constituency, irrevocably transforming the countryside and the small villages around it.
	My hon. Friend made a point about the misleading claims made by developers, and I want to reinforce that point to the Ministerthis is not a brownfield site. It has been described as Ford airfield, but 87 per cent. of the land is greenfield. When the Minister comes to visitI welcome her visit and hope to join hershe will see that it is largely beautiful open countryside at the foot of Arundel. It is of agricultural importance and is prime farmland. It is not, in the main, brownfield land. According to the figures, that makes up only 13 per cent. of the site and even less if one accounts for what is actually farmed. That is why the Campaign to Protect Rural England, although it supports the policy of eco-towns in general, has said that Ford is not an appropriate site.
	My main point is simply about local democracy. This is not an argument about the need for more affordable housing. We all recognise that, and Arun district council recognises it. Some 58,000 new houses will come to West Sussex over the next 20 years, and 11,300 of those will be in the Arun district. That number has already been upped by 2,000 from the recommendation of the South East England regional assembly, and it could be increased still further. Who should decide where these houses should go?

Caroline Flint: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Herbert: No, I cannot; I am sorry, but I do not have the time. The Minister can perhaps answer later, but I put it to her that Arun district council, the elected local authority, should decide where these houses should go. That decision cannot sensibly be imposed by Government simply because developers, who have been wanting to develop the site for yearsfrom well before the concept of eco-towns was even thought ofbelieve that they can impose their views above those of the locally elected representatives.
	Arun has already provided for a large number of affordable homes over the next three yearsabout 700, which is much more than has been claimed. That will go a long way towards providing the 2,000 homes that would be provided under the eco-town proposal. Let us leave these decisions to locally elected planning bodies. It is wrong in principle and will result in the wrong decisions if these decisions are imposed from on high by the Government.

Andrew Lansley: Now I get to play Just a Minute. Will the Minister please designate an eco-town in my constituency? Northstowe should have been the first eco-town and should now be designated as an eco-town. I talked to Sir Bob Kerslake from the Homes and Communities Agency last Friday and he said that the principal objection was that zero-carbon homes could not be built starting from the end of 2009. The Minister says that that is not required. The agency proposes level 3, but the local authority is asking for level 4.
	Secondly, the Minister says that the process should be based on local planning procedures. On 3 April, she published a consultation document, to which we will respond. In mid-May, the Government published the regional spatial strategy for the east of England, which sets out a sequential development test for the Cambridge sub-region that clearly prioritises Northstowe, and the urban extensions to Cambridge and the market towns, over a new settlement. If we are following the planning process, it seems obvious that the proposal at Hanley Grange should have been ruled out by the Government at the outset.

Caroline Flint: We have had a good discussion. I have heard many reasons why we should not have eco-towns, but I have not heard much from Opposition Members about an alternative to eco-towns that would allow us to meet housing need in communities; that has not been forthcoming.
	Helpful points were raised by some Opposition Members, and by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik). Thoughtful points, which I will take on board, were also made by colleagues from my party. The fact is that we need homes, but they need to be cleaner, green, and built in more sustainable communities. My ambition is to deliver those homes, and that is what I will try to do.
	 It being one and a half hours after the commencement of the proceedings, the motion lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to  the Temporary  Standing Order (Topical debates).

Defence Procurement

[Relevant documents: T he Fifth Report from the Defence Committee, on Ministry of Defence Annual Report and Accounts 2006-07, HC 61, and the Government Response ,  Fifth Special Report from the Committee, HC 468, and the Tenth Report from the Committee, on  Defence Equipment 2008, HC 295, and the Government Response, Seventh Special Report from the Committee, HC 555.]

Bob Ainsworth: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of defence procurement.
	May I start by expressing my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Corporal Sarah Bryant of the Intelligence Corps, Corporal Sean Reeve, Lance Corporal Richard Larkin and Paul Stout, who were tragically killed in an explosion during an operation east of Lashkar Gar on Tuesday? Their deaths are another stark reminder of the sacrifices that our people are making on our behalf. We must never forget them, nor must we allow their sacrifice to go unrecognised.
	In my first year in post, I have been increasingly impressed by the men and women of our armed forces, who are doing an outstanding job while deployed on operations around the world. I have seen their dedication and resourcefulness at first hand in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are, quite simply, outstanding professionals, and I know that the House will join me in paying tribute to their dedication and commitment. They are the best in the world and we are lucky to have them.
	Over the past few years, we have focused on providing our people with the best possible support on current operations. Providing them with the right equipment is essential if they are to do the job that we ask them to do. Since current operations began, we have spent more than 3.5 billion, through the urgent operational requirement process, on equipment to do just that. The money comes direct from the Treasury reserve and is additional to the Defence budget, which is 7.5 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1997. The recent Defence Committee report on defence equipment recognised that effort, and praised the speed with which we are delivering, through the UOR process, substantial amounts of vital equipment to our armed forces on the front line. Those efforts are also recognised by the most important audience of all: the troops themselves. According to Brigadier Carleton-Smith, currently commanding 16th Air Assault Brigade in Afghanistan,
	each soldier is much better equipped than he was in 2006 when the Brigade last served in Helmand. I doubt whether the British Army has ever put a brigade into the field as well equipped as 16 Brigade and it continues to improve with each deployment. The next brigade will probably be even better equipped.

Philip Hollobone: The Minister rightly paid tribute to the servicemen who recently lost their lives in Afghanistan. I know that the Snatch Land Rover has limitations, but what more can be done to offer our troops protection when travelling in those vehicles? One suggestion is that a device could be fitted that would intercept mobile phone signals, which can detonate improvised explosive devices. Is that sort of measure being considered by the Ministry of Defence? We will need to carry on using the Land Rovers, but surely more protection can be provided.

Bob Ainsworth: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. It is early days; the tragedy occurred on Tuesday and will need to be looked into in detail. Yes, the people concerned were in a Snatch Land Rover, according to the information that I have received so far. Another vehiclea Mastiff, for instancewould not have been suitable for the task they were doing in the area where they were required to work. Electronic countermeasuresthe kind of capability that the hon. Gentleman talks aboutare already fitted to Snatch Land Rovers, and I am told that they were fitted to the vehicle in question. Of course there needs to be a full investigation, and we need to look into the detail of the tragedy, as I am sure we will. We must learn any lessons that there are, and we cannot do that overnight. That is the extent of my information so far, the tragedy having only just occurred.

Mark Pritchard: Without going into too much detail, is the Minister confident that the configuration of the signals capability of our front-line troops fits well with the electronic countermeasures?

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman says, Without going into too much detail, and then asks me a highly technical question that can be answered only in time, after investigation. We have to use every incident as an opportunity to learn lessons, if we are to minimise the tragedies that will inevitably occur from time to time and minimise the impact on our people. Those issues will need to be considered.
	Equipment procured from our core budget has played a critical role in current operations. Platforms such as Harrier, Tornado, Warrior, Bulldog and Viking were procured with very different operational circumstances in mind, but they continue to prove their worth on current operations, giving the lie to the accusation that such high-end capability has no value in the complex operational situations that we face in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those platforms can be used across a range of operational scenarios; that has been proven in combat in the past few years. There will continue to be a place for such high-end capability in our future procurement plans.
	UOR procurement is rightly designed to deliver capability to meet the threats that we face in current operations, but we have to use our core budget to ensure that our armed forces are properly equipped for every eventuality, not just current operations. We need to strike a balance between the concrete needs of operations today and the risks that we might face tomorrow. Used properly, those two funding streams should complement each other. Whereas our core budget provides an equipment package that will act as a national insurance policy, the UOR process allows us to tailor and supplement that equipment package to meet immediate and unforeseen threats.
	Our last planning round focused on the near-term issues facing the core equipment programme. We now need to take a closer look at our medium-term plans and concentrate them further on supporting operations, in line with our commitment in the national security strategy. That is why we are undertaking a short examination of the equipment programme to look at our planning assumptions over the next 10 years. The examination will take in the whole equipment programme, within the context of our basic defence policy. We are doing that because priorities can change, particularly as a result of our experience on operations.
	Our estimates of the cost and phasing of expenditure change, too. That is why we have set ourselves the following key objectives: to adapt to rising costs, to shift the balance more towards support for current operations, and to do more for our people. It is simply sensible planning to re-examine our priorities in the light of operational experience and changing spending profiles. The examination will be an important input into the next planning round.

James Arbuthnot: The Minister just referred to the last planning round. Which one was it? Has planning round 2008 merged with planning round 2009?

Bob Ainsworth: The planning round is complete. Planning round 2008 is complete. Planning round 2009 needs to commence. The short examination that we are now undertaking will effectively inform the next planning round, which is the planning round for 2009. There were difficulties and, as I said, we concentrated on the short term in planning round 2008. We now need to take a longer look because of the spending profile that we have.

Michael Penning: rose

Kevan Jones: rose

Bob Ainsworth: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones).

Kevan Jones: I fully support what is being done, because we need to balance the urgent operational requirements and the kit that we are now buying with the longer-term decisions. That is correct, but may I ask the Minister's civil servantshis Departmentto hold their hands up for once and say that things have changed? I tabled a parliamentary question about where the Mastiff fits in the future rapid effect system programme, only to be told this week that it does not. I am sorry, but that answer absolutely contradicts what Lord Drayson and Brigadier Applegate told me and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), last year, when they said that the Mastiff was now part of the FRES family of vehicles. I should have thought that that was the correct approach. May I ask the Minister's civil servants, when they draw up the plans, to come back to reality rather than to the old script, which has clearly been ditched?

Bob Ainsworth: I am going to move on to talk about the vehicle programmesthe current vehicles on operations and the FRES programme. My hon. Friend has made himself quite an expert on the subject, and he knows that we will need to look at how we use Mastiff beyond current operations, so he makes a very valid point.

Angus Robertson: For the sake of clarity, will the Minister confirm whether the Nimrod MRA4 will be part of the short review that he just mentioned?

Bob Ainsworth: We have to draw the review as broadly as possible. We must look at our whole spending programme, and look at it in the medium term, if we are to have good information that informs the next planning round. We want to draw those bounds as widely as possible and not exclude particular areas. That is not to say that any decisions have been taken that change our intentions towards Nimrod or towards any other programme.
	While we carry out the examination, we remain committed to working with industry in line with the defence industrial strategy. We need clarity of purpose, an open working relationship with industry and to retain operational sovereignty where appropriate. We are well aware that over the past few months the uncertainty about our future equipment programme has been unsettling. The equipment examination is designed to give us the clarity we need to move forward with industry, confident that we are heading in the right direction.
	There is no better example of how that relationship with industry can work successfully in practice than the naval sector. The maritime industrial strategy has allowed some very effective joint work between the Ministry of Defence and the UK shipbuilding industry, such as the alliance approach being used in the surface-ship support projects. That approach gives industry visibility of future workloads and allows it to plan ahead and adapt its capabilities to meet our requirements. It delivers value for money for defence, and at the same time it helps to ensure that we have a sustainable skills base in our country.
	The most recent contract that we awarded was a 9 million contract to Babcock Marine for the standard support period for HMS Monmouth. It will deliver a number of important enhancements to the ship, including an upgrade of her torpedo defence system. There has been a sustained period of investment by the MOD in the UK shipbuilding industry, amounting to 14 billion over the next 10 to 15 years. The recent announcement about the carriers was only the latest in a series of significant naval procurements. We are also bringing into service new Astute submarines, a class of submarine to provide for the future nuclear deterrent, and we are scoping the next generation of surface combatants.
	The future of our Navy, and of our naval industrial base, remains secure. But in reality, we do not have unlimited resources. We have to prioritise a range of competing requirements, focusing on the balance between current operations and future capability. That is why I can confirm that we have taken a decision not to take the option to order the seventh and eighth Type 45 destroyer.
	The six destroyers that are already on contract will provide a formidable capability. Those ships will be far more capable than we first envisaged, helping to mitigate any shortfall in overall capability. To take one example, their air defence system includes a multi-function radar that is able to track multiple targets and direct high-velocity and exceptionally agile missiles at speeds of up to mach 4. Such technological advances mean that the Type 45 will play a key part in the future force protection package for our high-value ships, such as the carriers.
	It has been a difficult decision, but to ensure our future naval capability and maintain the tempo of work for industry, we are bringing forward the future surface combatant programme, which is the long-term replacement programme for the Type 22 and Type 23 frigates. That decision will result in a steady rhythm of building in our yardsfrom the six Type 45s, through the future carrier programme and into the surface combatant programme.

Mark Pritchard: Although I agree with the Minister that the new Type 45s' capabilities have been increased, they cannot be in two places at the same time. Given that we face an increased global threat, is he confident that we will have enough ships to do the job?

Bob Ainsworth: I understand that point, but we have to tailor our resources to the neediest area. I am assured that we have sufficient capability to protect the carrier task force with the Type 45s and other assets. The issue is effectively about defence in depth in respect of deployments and the other available assets. Therefore, the Navy will continue to have the worldwide reach that it will need to project force in different parts of the worldwherever our requirements lead us.
	One area where our procurement effort is already heavily shaped by current operations is protected patrol vehicles, whose importance has been brought home to us so tragically today. Through the urgent operational requirement process, we have spent more than 500 million on protected mobility since current operations began. That programme of upgrades has allowed us to ensure that our patrol vehicle package has kept pace with the rapidly evolving threat in both theatres. Our efforts have also been guided by the need to provide commanders with a range of vehicles with complementary capabilities. Commanders on operations face a variety of tasksfrom combat to engagement with the local populationin a range of challenging environments, from urban areas, through lush vegetation to open desert and mountains. They need a range of vehicles in order to carry out those tasks effectively.
	The new Jackal vehicles were procured under the UOR with the Afghan theatre specifically in mind. Those agile off-road vehicles are able to range effectively over the difficult terrain of southern Afghanistan, and they allow us to engage better with Taliban forces. They emphasise agility over protection; they could not fulfil their role otherwise. However, they complement other vehicles, such as the Mastiffs that we have already deployed, which are heavily armoured but less mobile.

Patrick Mercer: I entirely take the point about a mix of vehicles being necessary for protection, accessibility and flexibility for the commander. The fact remains that I was involved in the procurement programme for Snatch some 15 or 16 years ago, and those vehicles were almost over-matched by the relatively benign circumstances of patrolling on asphalt in Northern Ireland. They are entirely unsuitable for operations in Afghanistan. They are there because they are all that the militarythe Army, in particularhave got. I understand that this is a difficult equation, but could the Minister assure us that Snatch will be taken from service in Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as is humanly possible?

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman has a great knowledge of military needs and capability and says that he has been involved with Snatch as a capability for a long time. We are seeking all the time to extend the range of vehicles that are available. That is why we announced the new Ridgbacka large, medium-protected vehiclewhich we will bring into service as soon as possible. Whether we will be able to take away these small platforms without taking away a whole area of capability will need to be thought about very seriously. Snatch has suffered some considerable setbacks; we have lost lives in Snatch Land Rovers. However, I am being told by commanders on the ground that they still need Land Rover-based platformsweapons-mounted installation kit, or WMIC, and Snatchand will do for the foreseeable future. Ridgback will not entirely do that job, because it will not be able to get into the narrow, compounded urban areas in Helmand province, however much we would like it to.

Patrick Mercer: I was recently out in Afghanistan with my old regiment, 1st Battalion the Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresterswhich the Government have chosen for some reason to renameand people were cursing the Snatch Land Rover as wholly inadequate for those circumstances. I completely take the point about WMIC. Can we not therefore have more WMICs or WMIC variants but get rid of this wretchedly inadequate vehicle, which is a death trap to so many men and women?

Bob Ainsworth: I listen to the same people to whom the hon. Gentleman listensalthough I do not have the same personal relationships going back over time and perhaps am therefore not able to have the depth of conversation that he is able to haveso I am aware of some of the opinions about Snatch. However, I have to take military advice. If we were to try to take such decisions in this House rather than leaving them to people on operations trying to do the very arduous job that we have given them to do, that would be the wrong approach. I have to listen to that military advice, and I am sure that he accepts that in principle.

Michael Penning: As someone who was on operations many years agomany years before my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer)I would say that when people are on ops they will go with what they are given. The soldiers will do what they are told. Operational commanders in the field will use Snatch because that is all they have for that purpose, and that is costing lives. We should listen to what is happening on the groundnot so much from commanders but from servicemen and women, who are losing their lives because of Snatch, and their loved ones. They will use what they are given; take it away, and they will not use it.

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that there is no basis for a small, enclosed Land Rover-based capability and, in effect, that we will not be able to take vehicles into these kinds of enclosed spaces. We have continually to keep this under review. Mastiff cannot be taken everywhere. I saw that first-hand last time I was out in Afghanistan. I managed to get right out on to the front line to forward operating base Edinburgh and the district centre in Musa Qala, but I was not able to go into the town because the Mastiff vehicles that we were travelling in would have ripped up the roadways and presented a profile that was not in line with the message that we were trying to send to the local population at that time. However, our personnel have to be able to operate in the town and to engage with those people.

Kevan Jones: The conclusion to be drawn from the recent interventions is that my right hon. Friend should ignore what senior commanders say about day-to-day operations and listen to people on the ground. I have some sympathy with that, but I am sure that it would be opposed elsewhere. I have seen Mastiff work in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and it is a great vehicle, but does he agree that there will be situations in both places where people will not be able to have a vehicle that is completely, 100 per cent. survival-proof, because of the weight situation?

Bob Ainsworth: There is only so much protection that can be built in given the weight ratio. The problem that we have is how to get that capability across the ground, and the only way that I know of is to take the military advice.

Michael Penning: I think that the Minister slightly misunderstood my point, so I will try again. In the 1970s, when I served in Northern Ireland, we had the Land Rover and bolted some protection on to it, and we lost lives. The MOD saw sense, and after a procurement programme we brought in Snatch. It was designed only for Northern Ireland, not for anywhere else. It was certainly not designed for what we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, so we need a vehicle that is designed for that. I accept his point that we need mobile vehicles within town structures, but not Snatch. It was not designed for this situation, and the Minister knows it. We must listen to what is happening on the ground, not to the so-called procurement experts in the MOD.

Bob Ainsworth: We are not listening exclusively to the procurement experts in the MOD. We are listening to commanders on operationsthe people who have to do the job that we have given them to do. Snatch was upgraded and refurbished in 2006. I am not decrying the Mastiff, which is a great vehicle. People who have suffered attacks while inside it have a huge amount of confidence in its capability. However, any level of armour can be overcome, potentially including the Mastiff's, and Mastiff cannot go to certain places or do certain things. The hon. Gentleman is saying that we do not have vehicles designed for Afghanistan, but Mastiff was designed and procured specifically with Afghanistan in mind. Ridgback will be more capable than Mastiffsmaller and able to go to places that Mastiff cannotbut it will be considerably larger than a Land Rover-based vehicle.

Patrick Mercer: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is talking a great deal of common sense. There is absolutely no doubt that the sort of improvised explosive devices being deployed in these theatres will take out a tank, if that is what we choose to use. We cannot avoid that. Not wishing to teach the Minister to suck eggs, however, I should say that we had exactly that problem in the southern part of the county of Armagh in Northern Ireland for more than 30 years. Large IEDs were initially used against vehicles such as Saracen and Saladin, and were killing relatively large numbers of soldiers who were packed inside those vehicles. Our solution? We ceased to patrol on wheels or on tracks. We patrolled by helicopter or, more to the point, on good old Shanks's pony. May I suggest to the Minister that there is a solution to this problem, albeit not a complete one? We need more troops and more aircraft.

Bob Ainsworth: I know that the hon. Gentleman speaks a lot of common sense as well, and there are circumstances where foot patrols are not only far more effective for the job that we want to do, but far safer because of the situational awareness that people have when they are on foot patrol.

Kevan Jones: Does the Minister agree that the decisions outlined by the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) are for commanders on the ground, not politicians sat in the comfort of this Chamber? If my right hon. Friend or any other Minister in the Ministry of Defence were to intercede in these matters, would not Opposition Members be the first to criticise him?

Bob Ainsworth: Fundamentally, I agree with my hon. Friend, and I have said that, but we cannot refuse to allow a debate to take place in this Chamber on such an important matter. There are Members here today with expertise that they are able to bring to bear on these important issues.
	We provide commanders on the ground with a range of vehicles, which allows them to select the platform most suited to the immediate task in hand. The threat that we face on current operations is constantly evolving and we continue to keep our protected mobility requirements under review. That is why the Prime Minister announced in December that we will be procuring a new vehicle type, to be known as Ridgback, to provide 150 medium-protected patrol vehicles, which are lighter and able to access more areas than the Mastiff, but still with high levels of protection to continue to give commanders the choice of vehicles that they need.

Brian Jenkins: We have discussed at great length armoured vehicles and patrols. Are there any vehicles being used by our allies that would give our forces a better alternative and more protection, or are the vehicles we have the best we can manage, and the best in the world for the task they undertake?

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend asks an important question. Through the urgent operational requirements process, we look not just at what we use and what we produce in this country, but at what is available throughout the world. The Ridgback is an up-armour of an American vehicle, doing precisely the sort of thing that my hon. Friend asks about. It is considered the best. Its potential is at the level of that of the Mastiff, but its capability, in terms of where it can get to, will be greater because of its smaller size.
	Looking forward, the future rapid effect system programme will, in the words of General Dannatt,
	form the backbone of the Army's future armoured vehicle requirements.
	The provisional selection of the Piranha 5 as the preferred design for the FRES utility vehicle is an important milestone and demonstrates our continued commitment to the FRES programme. The programme will deliver a fleet of medium vehicles capable of operating across a range of need. We will ensure that FRES variants are protected against the most likely threats, including mine blasts. That protection will be built into the requirement for the vehicle. The FRES programme will deliver a fleet of vehicles able to go to more places via more varied routes, and to fulfil a greater number of tasks than any protected vehicle currently in our inventory. It will be a truly versatile tool in a commander's armoury. Let there be no doubt: FRES will have relevance to current operations.
	We have increased the level of helicopter support that we provide to commanders on operations. Helicopters are, as was said, a key part of the force package, and essential for our forces' in-theatre mobility. That is why, since March last year, we have increased the number of helicopter flying hours we provide in Afghanistan by more than 33 per cent., including increases in Chinook and Apache hours. That uplift has not just been achieved through an increase in the number of helicopters we have deployed. In some fleets, we have achieved the uplift in hours without an increase in the number of helicopters. By driving through efficiencies in our logistics support, capability is made up as much by the people who crew and maintain the platforms and the logistics chain, as it is by the platforms themselves.
	I saw that myself during a recent visit to RAF Odiham, the home of the Chinook force. Chinooks are a proven battle-winning capability and have been heavily committed on operations for the past seven years. The men and women of the Chinook force are working as hard as anyone in the military to support our current operations. I was enormously impressed by the dedication of all the people I met, from the pilots who crew the helicopters to those who maintain and support them.
	Working with Boeing and the integrated project team in Bristol, the Chinook force has totally transformed maintenance support. In the past three years, it has reduced the time that a Chinook spends in deep maintenance by 45 per cent. and the time for smaller repairs by 59 per cent., through a combination of improvements in working practice and operating with Boeing as closely as possible. Above all, it has kept a relentless focus on what is really importantin this case, the flying hours that we provide to commanders in Afghanistan. That is how it has given us a 33 per cent. increase in Chinook flying hours in the past three years.
	That is the future for defence procurement and equipment supporta combination of innovation, focus on results and dedication to team working, hand in hand with our partners in industry. That is the only way in which we can make the improvement that we need in supporting the front line while delivering the best possible value for the taxpayer.
	We hear a lot about the failings of defence procurement. With good reason, people home in on our shortcomings; effective public accountability demands exactly that. But let the whole House realise that many real gains are being made. The application of new methods and improved systems have allowed us to improve significantly the equipment that we provide to our troops on the front line. It is our people, often working in very difficult conditions, who must take the credit for those improvements. I hope that the whole House will join me in saluting their efforts.

Gerald Howarth: The tragic deaths of nine British servicemen and women in the past few days should serve to remind us of the critical importance of this, our annual review of the equipment programme for our armed forces. At the outset, I join the Minister in paying tribute to Corporal Sarah Bryant of the Intelligence Corps and to Corporal Sean Reeve, Lance Corporal Richard Larkin and Paul Stout for their sacrifice for our country. We remember today all those who have given their lives in the current conflicts, and we salute their comrades-in-arms, who, despite the loss of close friends and colleagues, do not flinch from continuing to take the fight to the enemy.
	Today we are all greatly indebted also to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) and his colleagues on the Select Committee on Defence for their valuable contribution in their most recent report on defence equipment. I was privileged to be a member of the Committee, which manages on a cross-party basis to serve its purpose of finding out what is going on and reporting it to the House. It provides us with expert and considered advice, which is appreciated.
	Last week in Westminster Hall we had a preliminary discussion, most ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton). As the Minister knows, she has made armoured vehicles her specialist subject. She would have liked to participate today, but she is on parliamentary duties in Westminster Hall as a member of the Chairmen's Panel and therefore cannot be with us.
	Although reference has been made to individual programmes, the whole issue of defence equipment procurement, including the process of acquisition itself, needs to be covered. Clearly, our immediate concern must be to ensure that we provide those on the front line in Afghanistan and Iraq with the kit that they need to fight today's war. However, the task does not end there, nor can it. With the certainties of the cold war gone, we find ourselves in a much more complex world in which it is much harder to predict where conflicts will arise.
	In my viewas the Minister knows, I expressed it last week in the Westminster Hall debateit would be a foolish politician who chose to concentrate solely on the here and now and to close his eyes to threats that could arise in the future. We must remember that it is capabilities that count, not intentions. Intentions can change overnight, but capabilities, as we know to our cost, take time to be changed.
	It is in that context that we should view, with concern, the Government's relentless run-down of the Royal Navy's surface fleet, from 35 to 22, and falling. In its report, the Defence Committee questioned
	whether it is ever likely
	that the revamped Nimrod MRA4 will deliver the capability needed. As former President, now Prime Minister, Putin expands his arsenal, not least his submarine fleet, should we be cavalier about dispensing with the long-range anti-submarine capability provided by the Nimrod?
	On the plus side, we believe that the decision to replace Trident was an example of essential longer-term planning consistent with the need to continue to prepare for a range of threats as yet unidentified. Mention was made in Westminster Hall last week of the Gates doctrine, according to which we need to concentrate on the actual war, not a possible war. I well understand that, but the people of this country would be very concerned if the House took such a short-sighted view as to think that we could rule out, for the foreseeable future orheaven forbideven over our lifetimes, the possibility of state-upon-state conflict. Defence has always been an insurance policy, and that applies no less today than it did in the past; indeed, it probably applies more today than in the past. The only difference is that today we are fighting actual conflicts for which we have to provide.
	The Minister ended his remarks by saying that some felt that there had been failures, which he was prepared to acknowledge. The Government are in complete disarray in their procurement programme. Let me go through some of the examples. Chinook helicopters intended for our vital special forces operations have been grounded for seven years while Ministers have tried to work out what to do.

Kevan Jones: They were commissioned by the Conservatives.

Gerald Howarth: I know all the arguments, and that is entirely true, but the Government have been in office for 10 years, during which they have sat around trying to cope with the problem and decide what to do. The failure to resolve that procurement issue is a failure of ministerial decision making. At the end of the day, the Minister knows that if he were asked to make that decision today, he would not be in a position to judge, but would have to rely on his experts. Indeed, he has already said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) that he has to rely on his experts. The question then was: why did the experts get it wrong in that case? Now the question is: why have Ministers taken seven years to resolve the matter?

Kevan Jones: Possibly to sort out the mess that the previous Conservative Government left in that contract. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that was not the only poisoned legacy that the previous Conservative Government left? They left us a complete farce over the sale of Annington Homes, which has left the Army's housing stock in the hands of a private company. If the hon. Gentleman wants lessons in supporting our armed forces, let me remind him that the 1 billion-odd that the Conservatives got for that was taken straight out of the defence budget and used for tax cuts.

Gerald Howarth: The Minister is fortunate that he can rely on the hon. Gentleman to blame the previous Conservative Government, after 11 years, for the failures of this Government. That argument might have worn for a few years, but it does not wear today. The Government have only themselves to blame.
	I have already mentioned the Chinooks. There has been a combined in-service date slippage of almost 14 years on three projects, with cost overruns of nearly 3 billion, which, as the Defence Committee said, are not limited to legacy projects. There has been scathing criticism from the National Audit Office of the bungled sell-off of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, which, we now understand from the former Minister, Lord Moonie, the Ministry of Defence was opposed to, but which it was dragooned into doing by a Treasury anxious to get its hands on MOD money.
	The Royal Air Force soldiers on with clapped-out VC10 and TriStar aircraft, while Ministers fashion a convoluted rental deal for delivery in three years' time. The Royal Navy is operating Lynx aircraft with less than 200 hours of airframe time left. There are still no contracts signed for the cornerstone of the Government's 1998 strategic defence review, the aircraft carriers, on which the French claim to be negotiating with Ministers in this country on a timeshare basis, like some holiday apartment.
	We are no nearer to a decision on the Army's essential new battlefield vehicle, the future rapid effect systemFRESdespite what the Minister has said. I will come to that in more detail in a moment. Urgent operational requirements are funded for the short term by the Treasury, as the Minister said, and are not part of the overall core defence budget. There is no comprehensive, through-life plan for the bits of equipment that are required under the urgent operational requirements.

Mark Pritchard: Would my hon. Friend like to put on record our thanks for all the hard work and dedication that have been put into fulfilling urgent operational requirements by the Defence Logistics Organisation staff, the Defence Support Group staff and the Army Base Repair Organisation in my constituency? They often work overtime for no extra pay in order to fulfil those UORs on the front line.

Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as I am sure the House will be, for making that point. I warmly endorse everything that he has said. Indeed, that is one reason why we have to maintain an integral British defence industrial base, without which we would not have access to that kind of spirited national effort in times of conflict.
	The Defence Export Services Organisation, which delivered huge benefits to the United Kingdom, was scrapped at the behest of an ennobled Treasury official, possibly in cahoots with the Campaign Against Arms Trade. The second instalment of the defence industrial strategy has been lost in the Department, if not on one of South West Trains. I could go on, but I will not because time is limited. It is little wonder that the one man with a grasp of the issues and the ability to make decisions, Lord Drayson, threw in the towel at the end of last year to go motor racing, leaving the defence industry with no clear vision of the Government's strategy.
	The recent equipment planning round for 2008EP08has proved so unsatisfactory that the Government have invented a stalling device that they have called an equipment examination, which is set to take three months. The House will be interested to know what the Minister has said this afternoon. Apparently, it is to be a short examination designed to look at a 10-year requirement. The Minister needs to make up his mind whether this has been designed to provide a reflective peace in order to wrestle with some of the longer-term issues to which I have already referred, or, as we all suspect, it is a stalling device designed to get the Government through planning round '08 or '09. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire was absolutely right to say that we have no idea whether PR08 has been concluded or not [ Interruption. ] The Minister says that he has just told us. Perhaps he will tell us when that short examination is going to report to the House. I will give way to him if he would like to put that on the record now [ Interruption. ] For the benefit of my right hon. and hon. Friends, he says it will be in a few months.

Bob Ainsworth: We do not report the end of planning rounds, and I am not aware of any previous Government having done so. We report decisions that have been taken, at the appropriate time, and we will continue to do so. From a planning point of view, it is common sense to undertake this short reviewshort in terms of the time that we hope it will takein order to inform the next planning round. Of course we will inform the House of any individual decision as soon as it is taken, and as soon as we are able to do so.

Gerald Howarth: I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be amused to hear that. As the Minister and others have said from the Dispatch Box, there are a lot of programmes on which they cannot tell us that a decision has been made. This would appear to be a prolonged EP08, and we await a decision on it. I am prepared to wager money that we will get a statement on the day before the House rises next month, or possibly on the day that it actually rises. We shall have to wait and see.

Brian Jenkins: I await the development of the hon. Gentleman's speech with interest. He complains about the length of time the preparation takes but, like most of the Defence Committee, I am keen to go through all that preparation before we get to the main gate. Astute, Brimstone, Nimrod, Stingray, Type 25 and Typhoon, which together are now more than 2.8 billion over budget, and have a time delay of 25 years between them, were all signed off by the previous Government without going through that gateway and that scrutinised preparation. How can the hon. Gentleman argue in favour of that?

Gerald Howarth: It is, of course, incumbent on the Ministry to make decisions more swiftly than it is at the moment, but those decisions must be informed. I shall come to explain how I see that happening, so the hon. Gentleman will get my answer in a few moments.
	Let me continue with EP08. So disastrous has the Government's handling of defence procurement become that the three services are effectively at each other's throats. Each one explained to whomever would listen that the key project for their service was vital, while the projects for the other services were either not priorities or irrelevant to current operations. The overall impression is that the Government have lost interest, know that they face defeat at the next election and are anxious to postpone as many decisions as possible for the incoming Conservative Administration to pick up, having bankrupted the country to boot.
	We need to know when the carrier contract will be signed and we need more than the Prime Minister's assertion yesterday that
	it is totally untrue that we are trying to merge the English, British and French navies[ Official Report, 18 June 2008; Vol. 477, c. 942.]
	whatever that curious SNP-type description of the Royal Navy was supposed to mean. What the French are saying is that their officials are in negotiation not about merging the two navies, but about somehow sharing aircraft carriers. That is what the Minister needs to explain. Are French and British officials in negotiation and, if so, on what? If the Minister does not want to answer that now, I hope that the Under-Secretary will specifically answer it in his concluding speech.
	The Minister has told us the pretty desperate newsalbeit something that we had expected all alongthat the Type 7 and 8 ships of the Type 45 class are to be cancelled. I think that the House will want absolutely cast-iron assurances today [Interruption.] The Minister for the Armed Forces says They were never ordered, but they were all part of the strategic defence review and, still more important, they were a key component in the whole carrier force. Unlike the current class of pocket carriers, if I may call them that, which have heretofore had the protection afforded by the Sea Harrier, those carriers have no on-board protection against air attack. That is what the Type 45 is designed to provide. What the House and the Royal Navy will want today is an assurance from the Secretary of State that there is sufficient protection in six ships to look after two aircraft carriers at any one time. Without that assurance, I am bound to say that the entire project encapsulated in the strategic defence review will be put at risk.
	As far as FRES is concerned, the Minister said that General Dynamics had been appointed as the provisional preferred bidder, but as far as I am aware, the line seems to have gone dead since. The Minister set out the roles that the vehicle is expected to perform, but what we need to know is when we will get delivery. General Jackson said about five years ago that he needed this by 2009 and the Minister will be aware from today's debate, as well as from discussion in the press, that this is a critical programme for the Army.

Kevan Jones: rose

Gerald Howarth: I will not give way, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
	The battlefield multi-role helicopter, in the form of the future Lynx, is also critical. That aircraft has little in common with the current Lynx, but it is essential for the British Army. Are we going to have to await the outcome of the Minister's short equipment examination and when can we expect to hear news on that front?
	Time does not permit me to expand on all the Government's failures, so I shall concentrate on three themes. The first is the balance of forces. I am very conscious of the argument that we are spending vast sums of taxpayers' money on exceptionally high-tech kit to fight an asymmetric conventional war in Afghanistanan argument that deserves to be addressed. We need to be aware that even close-quarter combat is today conducted in the full glare of international media coverage and that there is a belief that modern warfare is a kind of enhanced computer game in which only the baddies get zapped. Collateral damage or the death of innocent civilians is widely regarded as unacceptable.
	Only the use of sophisticated equipment such as the sniper pod, which is carried by the Harriers, enables the precise identification and targeting of individuals and buildings. That kit is expensive and that new equipment also needs relatively expensive defensive aid suites attached for force protection against an increasingly sophisticated enemy. But there is, as the House has considered today, an overriding imperative to provide better force protection against the enhanced threat from improvised explosive devices, which, as I forecast, have migrated to Afghanistan from Iraq.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) rightly pressed the case on when the Snatch Land Rovers are to be withdrawn and replaced by the new WIMIK. The Under-Secretary ought to tell the House something about when we can expect that vehicle, which has much more armour and an example of which I have seen, to be much more readily available to forces in theatre. I accept everything that the Minister for the Armed Forces said about the Mastiff and it not being suitable for every role.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) will deal further with the issue of force protection in his winding-up speech, but the one thing that we have to be clear about is the fact that we cannot provide 100 per cent. protection for our armed forces in the field, and there would be no point in our deceiving the British people that we can so do.
	Secondly, I want to discuss the procurement process and the role of industry. Although I have been highly critical of the Government's overall procurement strategy, I am happy to join the Minister in acknowledging the fact that the urgent operational requirement programme has resulted in improvements in body armour; the off-the-shelf purchase of Predator unmanned aerial vehicles, renamed Reaper by the Royal Air Force; and provision of armoured vehicles such as the Mastiff.

Michael Penning: Body armour is obviously there to protect servicemen and women on operations, but is my hon. Friend aware that it is not fire protected? In other words, it will burn. Individuals such as Lance Corporal Compton, who suffered horrific burns after his vehicle was hit in Afghanistan, received those injuries because the body armour, which is designed to protect them, burns and their bodies are damaged.

Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information, which I did not know. I am sure that the whole House will also be grateful to him and that the Under-Secretary will want to respond to that information in his winding-up speech.
	The Minister referred to further helicopter capability, and we do indeed have another six Merlins, which we have acquired from Denmark, but which will not enter service until they have been modified for current operations. However, those programmes are essentially one-offs with, as I understand it, little in the way of planned through-life support.
	I understand that the Danish Merlins, unlike the ones ordered by the UK, carry the traffic alert and collision avoidance systemTCAStogether with weather radar, but they will not be maintained once they become unserviceable. TCAS would prevent the loss of life in mid-air collisions and I find it hard not to have contempt for a deliberate decision to refuse to maintain a life-saving piece of equipment. As a result of acquiring one-off pieces of equipment such as those I have mentioned, we find that there is no consistency across the fleet, with a multitude of variants having to be maintained, all of which adds to the cost.
	There seems to be agreement between us that there needs to be a fundamental review of the procurement process so that we develop an ability to respond much more swiftly to the rapidly shifting nature of the threat while being able to fit the new equipment into a coherent overall core programme. I accept that that is no easy task, but it must be undertaken. The Treasury needs to be part of the process so that it can understand why its agreement to fund the simple acquisition of a UOR should not be the end of its responsibility.
	I note that the Defence Committee has again expressed concern about the skills available to the MOD to enable it to monitor procurement projects. The Ministry needs to ensure that project development personnel with experience of controlling major projects are brought in from the private sector so that the MOD has the benefit of serious commercial knowledge that enables the customer to be an informed one and not be taken for a ride by industry. Alongside such savvy commercial people, I accept that we need military personnel with current knowledge of the kit in question.
	Under proposals made by Lord Drayson in the defence industrial strategy, British industry, which plays such an important role in supporting our armed forces, had some idea of where the Government were going. The Minister is correct: today, it is extremely unhappy and has no sense of direction. Lord Drayson's strategy is clearly set out in paragraph A1.16 of the defence industrial strategy:
	Promoting an overall business environment which is attractive to defence companies and investors... identifying key industrial capabilities which are important to Defence to retain in the UK industrial base to maintain appropriate sovereignty, with sustainment strategies where these seem at risk.
	We agree with that assessment. The Astute submarine programme ran into trouble in part because of skill fadethe loss of key skills to build the boatsand it is essential that we do not allow that situation to prevail.
	Equally, we need to maintain investment in defence research. The defence technology strategy acknowledged as much when it said that today's battle-wining kit is the result of yesterday's investment. A programme of technology demonstrators may be one way of ensuring that we keep feeding the research base.
	It is important to preserve Britain's world-class research base not only for the benefit of our own forces but so that we have something to bring to the party with the US. The moment when we cease to be such a contributor, we shall become a supplicant, and that would dramatically alter the relationship. I know that the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), the former Secretary of State who is now the Government Chief Whip, felt that ownership of Britain's defence industry to be of little consequence. Since he made that assertion some four years ago, however, two of our major enterprisesBAE Systems and QinetiQ, both of which happen to have their headquarters in my constituencyhave been developing faster in the US than in the UK.
	At the same time, many of our smaller companies are being acquired by overseas interests, such as Thales from France and Finmeccanica from Italy. There is clearly an element of the inevitable about that, thanks to globalisation, but if we want to maintain a vibrant defence industry in the UK, we must ensure that investors can see an income stream.

John Smith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the achievement of the British defence industry. Recently published figures show that defence exports from this country are at record levels.

Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman, who plays such a vigorous role in our debates, will be pleased to hear that I shall come to that in a moment.
	The Minister needs to tell us when we can expect DIS 2. In the other place, his colleague Baroness Bolton told my noble Friend Lord Astor that it was anticipated that DIS 2 would be brought forward, but that no date had been set. We, and British industry, would like to know when that will happen.
	I am the first to acknowledge that foreign companies such as Thales and Finmeccanica make important contributions to the UK's defence effort

Kevan Jones: What is the hon. Gentleman's point?

Gerald Howarth: My point is that we must remember that investment decisions are taken at head office. If most of the relevant head offices are outside the UK, we need to bear that in mind.
	For its part, industry needs to accept that the current economic outlook is pretty bleak. It will have to smarten up its processes still further, as we shall seek to secure better value for money for the taxpayer.
	I am concerned about the three prototype Nimrod MRA4s, and gather that BAE Systems is demanding a substantial amount of money to bring them on line. The failure of the Nimrod programme lies wholly at the company's door: it is the design authority for that aeroplane, and it has a responsibility to the nation to deliver it into service very quickly. It is hugely needed for current operations, as well as for the future.
	On a positive note, British industry's attainment of a record 10 billion in defence sales last yearto which the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) alludedunder the outstanding leadership of Alan Garwood was a singular milestone. It is a tribute to the co-operation between industry and the Ministry of Defence, but that collaboration was shatteredutterly needlessly but wilfullyby the Prime Minister last July. That was an act of vandalism that I am pleased to report will be reversed immediately when the Conservative party assumes office. It is a sign of the transfer of power in this area that my question to the Ministry of Defence about how many foreign military delegations had visited UK Trade and Investment since that act of vandalism has been transferred to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

Bob Ainsworth: Does the hon. Gentleman have any evidence that the damage that he alleges has actually been done? We have just heard about last year's record defence sales. What evidence does he have?

Gerald Howarth: I am trying to find information. I have been told that the Ministry of Defence is no longer in command of these matters, as I feared. The responsibility for defence sales has been transferred to another Department, where it sits alongside that Department's responsibility for other areas of British industry. Last year's record defence sales are a tribute to Alan Garwood and his team of outstanding people, but I want to know how many military delegations are continuing to speak to the Government. I shall look forward to seeing them at Farnborough. I hear that they do not want to speak to UK Trade and Investment. They want to speak to Government, and people in uniform want to speak to other people in uniform. That is the problem.

Mark Pritchard: Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the Government's withdrawal of funds from both the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office for defence and military attachs, who do a great job throughout the world and also play an important part in defence sales?

Gerald Howarth: I entirely agree. I think that some of those offices could be closed without huge damage being done to the United Kingdom's defence industry, but the closure of othersI note that the Finland office, for example, is earmarked for closurestrikes me as evidence that the Foreign Office has demanded more money from the Ministry of Defence, which it is having to apply to current operations.
	Paragraph A1.21 of Defence Industrial Strategy states:
	We must maintain the appropriate degree of sovereignty over industrial skills, capacities, capabilities and technology to ensure operational independence.
	That brings me to the subject of the joint strike fighter. We are equity partners in that major United States programme, but the US has been reluctant all along to allow us full operational sovereignty over the aircraft that we acquire. That cannot be right, and is no way to treat a key ally. We have experienced no problems with the arrangements regarding the operation of our Trident submarines, and the US should not hesitate to give us the sovereignty that we require over the joint strike fighter. Perhaps Ministers can tell us how matters stand, and whether the Government are continuing to insist that if Lockheed Martin is to have any role in the maintenance of the aircraft, it must perform that role from a facility within the United Kingdom.
	I suspect that I am not alone in being extremely concerned about the treatment of senior BAE Systems personnel at the hands of the United States Department of Justice. The fact that our key ally had detained as common felons the chief executive, a non-executive director and the group business development director should have had the Prime Minister on the telephone to the President of the United States forthwith. I understand that one of those detained was met by five armed guards, and that his luggage was searched for an hour while they awaited a subpoena warrant.
	I also understand that there is to be a grand jury hearing next month, when the United States will seek information on the UK-Saudi deal. That was a Government-to-Government deal between Her Majesty's Government and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and is not the business of the United States. Perhaps we should demand to see its memorandums of understanding with the Israelis.

Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the leader of his party that he should not criticise the Prime Minister for making what I consider to have been the right decision when the Government interceded in the investigation of the al-Yamamah deal with Saudi Arabia? He will recall that Conservative international development spokesmen tabled a motion to be debated on the Floor of the Housewith which I know the hon. Gentleman did not agreecriticising the involvement of BAE Systems in Tanzania.

Gerald Howarth: We made it very clear that we regarded that as a matter for the Attorney-General, as the Law Officer of the Crown with responsibility, and that we would accept his judgment.
	The present disastrous state of affairs is the effect of 11 years of stewardship, or lack of it, by the Prime Ministerfirst in his role of Chancellor, when he failed to fund the armed forces to the extent necessary to meet the Government's own strategic defence review requirements, let alone current operations, and now in his role as First Lord of the Treasury, where his understanding of the military is so inadequate that he believes that the Secretary of State for Defence can double up in his spare time as Secretary of State for Scotland, with the modest task of saving his colleagues' seats from the ravenous Scottish National party hordes. That constitutes no assault on the present incumbent, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne), for whom I have great affection and who has sought to fulfil his impossible task to the very best of his considerable ability; but wherever I go, I find that the military feel the insult keenly. They believe that the political class does not value them.
	The defence of the realm and its wider interests across the globe is the first duty of any Government. The extent of this Government's failure to provide for both the present and the medium term has been, to an extent, masked by the extraordinary professionalism, courage and dedication of the men and women of Her Majesty's armed forces, the support of their families, and the hard work and ingenuity of the 300,000 people in Britain's defence industry who are engaged in the noble cause of providing equipment for the front line. They deserve better, and I trust that the incoming Conservative Government will not let them down.

Bruce George: When I was the Chairman of the Defence Committee and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) was partially under my control, I thought I could teach him the moderation and fair-mindedness that I had exhibited throughout my parliamentary career. At the beginning of his speech, I thought that I had succeeded brilliantly, but I realised that I had wasted 15 years of my life when he lapsed back into his partisan ways, seeing everything through a single set of spectacles. Frankly, if people are considering what way to vote in the next election and if defence figures heavily in their thinking, perhaps they should look at who the spokesmen are on those areas of policy. That gives me a great deal of hope, which I must confess I have not witnessed for some weeks. If the hon. Gentleman manages to convey his sense of fairness to his other colleagues, I shall be quite up for the next election.

Linda Gilroy: Someone in my constituency summed it up very aptly as, Scratch a Tory, same old story.

Bruce George: My nails are not long enough to scratch the hon. Gentleman, but I can work it out without undertaking such a painful search.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke about a disastrous state of affairs. Any serious-minded personthere are somewould see more than a glimmer of hope that a Labour Government had behaved incredibly responsibly for 10 years. I find it deeply insulting that the endeavours of a Government who have been successful are somehow deliberately misconstrued to try to give the impression that Michael Foot has been Secretary of State for Defence and Tony Benn the Minister for Defence Procurement for the last 10 years. It has not been that way at all. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that, I feel some concern.
	I shall try to be even-handed. When I was Chairman of the Defence Committee, we kicked the hell out of the Government, whoever were the Government of the day. That was part of our role and no mercy was shown. I reached the conclusion, rather painfully, that despite the immense endeavours of Governments of whatever political hue over the years, defence procurement has proved to be immensely complicated. The best minds and organisations, with the best will in the world, have not yet led us to produce the weapons and the equipment required for our armed forces within the original budget that actually works. It has not happened.
	From the strategic defence review onwards, I cannot think of any area of Government policy that has been subject to more close analysis, investigations, inquiries, changes, adjustments and readjustments, all seeking that ultimate goal of producing the equipment required in time and of the right quality at an acceptable cost. Whatever Government are in office will pursue that totally elusive goal.
	I spent many hours, before the hours of the House were altered, in the Library looking at the history of defence procurement. I found it quite interesting because so many lessons can be learned. Every single war in which our armed forces have engaged was either just about won, or even lost, not just because of poor leadership but because of poor procurement. Poor equipment has existed as long as warfare. In recent years, the subject has been treated seriously. I recall reading storiesI was not there at the timeof how infantrymen's bayonets were snapping in the 19th century and of new ships sinking on contact with water. So one finds that this is not a recent development.
	When the Defence Committee produced the first of its many very good reports under this Government in 1998, I commissioned an analysis of the history of the examinations of defence procurement, and what we came up with was not earth-shattering: the 1961 Gibb-Zuckerman inquiry was followed a few years later by the Downey report; then there was the Mr. Peter Levene appointment, which brought many changes between 1985 and 1991 and many critical reports after his departure by the Defence Committee, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, internal MOD inquiries and Defence Evaluation and Research Agency inquiries. The industry, academics and consultants made criticisms and proposed how procurement should be improved. There was then the very important strategic defence review process, which was epochal in its approach, and the smart procurement and smart acquisition initiative and so on.
	I am as guilty as the hon. Member for Aldershot, in that it is very difficult to put all the blame on one Governmentin fairness, he alluded to that fact. Time scales are such that the programmes are begun by one Government, but are later cancelled or persisted with until the towel is thrown in when people say that they must be cancelled because they are not redeemable. Alternatively, something else could happen. I suspect that the SA80 is a great example of that, because it originated under Labour, somehow survived 17 years of the Conservative Government and then became a half-decent gun when Labour came back into office. The problem is that if one is going to take the hon. Gentleman's approach or the one that I am just about to take, that is not entirely fair, because blame can be fairly evenly distributed.
	The National Audit Office report gives many reasons why projects fail: inflation, cost estimating, changes in specification, quantity audit variation and cost variation. There are also equally long explanations of failure on in-service dates. One could go on almost endlessly.
	I have said in previous debates of this kind that I should not go into the history too much unless provoked, and I have been provoked once again, this time by the hon. Member for Aldershot. I have found my infamous A to Z of Tory procurement failures. I shall just remind him of those, although I was not going to do so. If we see before us the team, with a few additions, that will be setting up as the new decision makers in procurement, we want to know what they are, what they are doing, what they are saying and what the genesis of their evolution is. I must therefore remind him about Bowman, among other thingsI shall not cover the whole of my alphabet.
	C stands for the cancelled common new generation frigate; for CACS, on which the Defence Committee reported in 1986-87that system was rubbish; for HMS Challenger, which was a sea bed operation vehicle that was flogged off because it did not work; and for the Chinook Mark 2, which was originated in 1995 and with which we have not done much until recently, but we know where it began. D stands for DROPSthe Demountable Rack Offload and Pickup Systemwhich I am sure the hon. Gentleman will remember, as everyone on the Defence Committee does. F stands for Foxhunter. I recall, as will he, that the Defence Committee was persuaded to close its eyes to the fact that when a Tornado was flying with its radar, there was no radar thereit was concrete put into the nose. We tried to sell it on the basis of concrete and not on the basis of a proper radar system. F also stands for the Fearless-Intrepid change, which took so long.
	I could add the Hercules replacement, the C130J; JSTARS, the joint surveillance targets attack radar system, which we should have bought for ASTOR, the airborne stand-off radar; Law 80, a wonderful weapons system except that it bounced off Russian tanks; Nimrod 2000; QinetiQ, which was appalling; the Rapier field service C; the SA-80 rifle; the Upholder class submarine, which was flogged off to the Canadians; Westland; and Zircon. The list goes on and on.
	I am prepared to accept criticism of procurement failures. In a debate two years after we came into office, the then Opposition Defence spokesman criticised our recordit was my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who has since wisely defected to the Labour party, no doubt immediately after one of my critiquesand I told him to wait, because we had only been in office for two years and we had not had time to have any failures. I said that if he came back in 10 years, there would be a lot, and there are. But that is endemic. Despite all our efforts, defence procurement is an attempt to do the undoable. Other countries have failed equally miserably, and some far worse.

Gerald Howarth: I just wanted to say that the C130J was a success and ordered by us, but I shall not question the list any further because the right hon. Gentleman might find a new alphabet to double the numbers.

Bruce George: Until I do, I am prepared to teach the hon. Gentleman the existing alphabet. The C130J was partly his Government's policy and partly Lockheed Martin's. The Defence Committee came up with a solution and said that we should not put all our money into the C130J, which was then unworkable, but look for alternatives and supplement it. In this case, it was largely Lockheed Martin's fault that the C130Js were not as numerous as they could and should have been, and my version of events is better than the hon. Gentleman's. If he would like to try again, I shall willingly give way. Indeed, having heard his riposte, I would give way as long it was allowed.
	I have tried to find out what cancellations of systems there have been, but it was tricky. The hon. Gentleman's boss tried to find that out and he was apparently told that information about the cancellation of systems could be provided only at disproportionate cost. One wonders how many failures have gone unpublicised. Along with my A to Z, I have looked at the Public Accounts Committee's reports. Projects cancelled between 2002-04thus ordered by the previous Governmentincluded TRIGAT, the third-generation anti-tank missile; the multi-role armoured vehicle; the area defence weapon; and the counter anti-radiation missile suite.
	In 1989, the then Minister was asked a parliamentary question about projects cancelled between 1984 and 1989. The list is short but telling and does the previous Government no credit. I can read out the list of projects cancelled under the Conservatives if hon. Members wish me to do so.

James Arbuthnot: We are all enjoying the right hon. Gentleman's speech enormously. His performance on the Defence Committee is remembered with great reverence, affection and respect. Will he give some thought to the point we made in our most recent report on procurement to the effect that money is always short, and one therefore needs to decide whether salami-slicing or cancelling an entire programme is better? Salami-slicing can destroy the benefit of many programmes for the future.

Bruce George: I was about to deliver a eulogy on the Defence Committee, not only under my chairmanship but under that of the right hon. Gentleman. Its reportsincluding on defence equipment 2008 and on defence industrial strategyare excellent and quite remarkable.
	My response to the right hon. Gentleman's question was to have been my conclusion, but I shall give it early: we have to determine the defence budget based not just on what money is available but on the need. If the need is high, the budget has to be increased. Too many historical examples should persuade any people in the Ministry of Defence who have read historyI am sure that many of them havethat to do otherwise is profoundly unwise, because when they find out that they have made a mistake they will have retired and the consequences for the political and bureaucratic classes are potentially devastating. We have lived through enough historic failures to convince people that history cannot be thrown aside on graduation.
	I strongly argueI am not saying this just for the benefit of the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) or because of his interventionthat a lot has been done to enhance procurement. I will not go into the arguments about defence expenditure collapsing under the Tories or the enormous expenditure dedicated by this Government, but we have now reached the point in terms of personnel and equipment where it is inadequate to take the stance that is being taken. If equipment is inadequate, lives are lost and wars can be lost. The Government are doing a pretty good job, but we are getting close to the point where someone in office will have to rattle the Treasury's cage and say that the budget has fallen to such a level that if it continues to do so it will not just be undesirable but could have serious consequences.
	Going back to my pro-Government mode, I should say that what emerged from the SDR was quite remarkable. We have seen smart procurement, smart acquisition, integrated project teams and the creation of all sorts of thingsresource accounting and budgeting, public-private partnerships, private finance initiatives and partnering. The list goes on and on. Then we see the developments coming out of the EUI will not spend much time on themor NATO. There is defence industrial policy, on which we produced an excellent report in 2002, and then there is defence industrial strategy. The list of initiatives is a long one.
	I have read the Defence Committee reports about new developments, stocktake, the Defence Procurement Agency forward teams and so onthere has been so much activity. However, I would want to see more evidence that endeavour, activity, research and so on had brought us close to solving the problems that have so far eluded Governments.
	Jeremy Blackham, whom most of us know well, wrote an article for the Royal United Services Institute, or RUSI, about what he called the wicked problemsthe almost insoluble problems that face all Governments. I fear that we have an enormous task to do before we achieve the equipment that we require.

Brian Jenkins: I have listened with great interest to my right hon. Friend, who speaks with authority, and to his shopping list. Does he not think, as I have over the years, that when an item for procurement goes on to become very expensive and therefore unworkable and is axed, we should ask whether it was a need or a want? When it was axed, the world did not end and we just went on with the next project. Do we have too many projects of want rather than projects of need?

Bruce George: That is a very fair question. If we intend to be a major part of the second rank, as we have been since 1970, and do not want to drop down to the lower divisions, we have to do something quite expensive about the quality of not only the personnel but the equipment. In fairnessI am being very fair to the Governmentthe Government fully support Trident, the joint strike fighter, Eurofighter, the carrier programme and so on. All the equipment must have come as a bit of shock to the Conservatives, who probably could not believe that a Labour Government would take such expensive and correct decisions, facing down those in their own party who are still hypercritical.
	On the Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre website, I saw a superb unclassified document called The DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme 2007-2036a modest remit to address. It is difficult to predict the future; probably Nostradamus was the best at it, but his sayings lacked the precision necessary to help a defence planner. Clearly, when the Treasury considers proposals put before it, it will try to gauge whether the equipment is affordable and desirable given the time frame involved. The report considers the endless range of issues, including climate change and globalisation, that could become security and military problems in the next 15 to 30 years. However, it hedges its bets.
	Let us consider how dangerous the environment could be in future, given the long list of 20 potential problems. If we add to that the rise of potential new superpowers and the resumption of arms races, we find that we may face such a multitude of problems, requiring such a range of responses, that the costs will be prohibitively high. Will we be required to fight a war of survivalwe were drifting into such a situation during the cold waras well as having to deal with all the other issues involving our forces? I can only hope that those with greater experience and access are in a position to say, These are the threats that we will face in five, 10, 15, 20 or 25 years. Given how procurement proceeds in this country, we need to start thinking very seriously about the weaponry that we might need for 2025 or 2030.
	There will be mistakes in procurement decisions; we will order weapon systems that are superfluous by the time that they can be deployed. The Government should be prepared to think carefully, spend money and look into the future with as much precision as possible. By 2010, 2015 or 2030, unless we have quality personnel and equipment, the country will find itself in a distinctly embarrassing situation.

Nick Harvey: I welcome this opportunity for a regular debate on defence procurement, but like others I begin by paying tribute to the service personnel who have lost their lives in Afghanistan. We have had a grim couple of weeks there, but that shows how important the fight is, and the battles must go on. I pay tribute to the Special Air Service members, and to Intelligence Officer Sarah Bryant, Corporal Sean Robert Reeve, Lance Corporal Richard Larkin and Paul Stout. Our thoughts are with their friends and families. We owe gratitude to them, and to everybody who continues to undertake the very dangerous work that is vital to our national interest.
	The security of the nation is the Government's first responsibility, but it is clear that the nature of the task of securing our nation has changed, as new challenges and threats have emerged. In the 1998 strategic defence review, we rightly identified our priorities and how we would respond to the threats of that time, but events have changed a great deal, and rapidly, since then. We find ourselves in more wars of choice than we had anticipated, and we are more greatly involvedat a more sustained levelin operations in hostile areas than the assumptions of the 1998 review envisaged. We are involved in two sustained high-tempo operations, and we have additional commitments in the Balkans. Given our limited defence budget, our reliance on reserves to meet key immediate needs, and significant delays to some of the most important procurement projectsa subject already mentionedwe are obliged to ask serious questions about defence.
	We need to ask about the future needs and challenges of our armed forces, how we can most effectively meet them in the next 20 years and beyond, and how we prepare for unforeseen threats that might arise during that period. Great plans for the future are of little comfort to the men and women who are on the front line today, but preparations that build on our current capabilities are absolutely vital. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), speaking from the Conservative Front Bench, rightly stressed the need to strike a balance between our immediate needs in Afghanistan in particular and the reality, which we must keep in mind, that we cannot assume that, just because there is no immediate threat, we will not in the medium or long term find ourselves once again involved in state-on-state warfare.
	Just as 25 years ago we were configured for the military needs of the cold war, and now we face mainly insurgency tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan, the future security environment might be founded on some very different considerations: climate change, migration, technological developments, population growth and resource scarcity, which the Government have already recognised. As I look at that uncertain future and consider the threats that we might face, ringing in my ears are the words of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who also speaks from the Conservative Front Bench. He will always paint a grisly picture of the threats that we could face from Russia, China

Kevan Jones: Icebergs.

Nick Harvey: Not to mention the icebergs.
	It is essential that we always keep such considerations in mind. However, were we to find ourselves involved in any hostilities with the likes of Russia or China, it would be quite beyond our capacity to hold them at bay on our own. Although we must be prepared for the possibility of such engagements, we can prepare only in concert with our military allies. It is not necessary or desirable for the United Kingdom to attempt to defend itself across a broad front entirely from our own resources. We must co-operate with our NATO and European allies to make better use of equipment and personnel. That may occasionally mean a greater willingness to buy off the shelf to meet short-term needs, and we must find ways of speeding up procurement in order to limit waste and inefficiency.
	For that reason, I, like others, have said several times in the Chamber that we clearly need another strategic defence review. I welcome the Government's conduct of various small-scale reviews of certain aspects of defence policy, but it is now 10 years since we had a strategic defence review, and as I have said before, the Americans conduct one every four years. It is high time that we went through that exercise again. To take the point that was just made, it may be necessary for the Treasury to recognise the need for more resources, but frankly that could be done only off the back of another strategic defence reviewnot one whose aim from the outset was to reduce the defence budget, but one that examined our foreign policy needs and objectives and then began to build a defence capability that was in tune with, and responsive to, them.
	The Ministry of Defence has set out in its defence plan its strategic objectives for the coming three years:
	Achieve success in the Military Tasks we undertake at home and abroad... Be ready to respond to the tasks that might arise...Build for the future.
	They are all worthy objectives, and they should apply at any stage, but I still believe that something more fundamental by way of a review is necessary.
	Last year, the Defence Committee raised concerns about the MOD's 20 biggest weapons projects, which are 2.6 billion over budget and a total of 36 years behind schedule. This month we learned that the Prime Minister has instructed defence chiefs to delay replacing old weapons, vehicles and aircraft in order to try to ease the 2 billion black hole, which looks set to be even bigger in a couple of years' time. There is a debate to be had about the merits of salami-slicing or deciding that we have to review our commitments and what we are trying to do.
	The hon. Member for Aldershot quoted from the White Paper, Defence Industrial Strategy, and said that it was necessary for us to have an appropriate degree of independent British defence industrial capability to ensure operational independence. He was right to identify the phrase and to quote from it. However, the key word is appropriate. There are sometimes points at which we may have gone too far in trying to defend the concept of independence. A great deal more could be done to ensure our capability to respond in the short term, as well as provide better value for money for our taxpayers, by giving a little ground on the concept of independence and being more willing to look around at what our allies are doing, so that what we are doing dovetails with that.
	The hon. Member for Aldershot shuddered with horror at what President Sarkozy was reported as having said and suggested that the Government might be in a dialogue with him about the possibility of, as the hon. Gentleman put it, a time-share of our aircraft carriers. He took the point a bit far, although I would share his concern if that was really what was proposed.
	However, whatever we do in future we will do in concert with our allies. If we are going to invest in such enormous things as aircraft carriers, as I believe we should, it is essential that we view them not only as British assets but as NATO assets that we share with our allies. It is entirely right and appropriate to have discussions with others about the exact use to which the aircraft carriers will be put and how we can co-operate on ensuring that maximum value is extracted from such a massive investment. We need to think about how we extract the best long-term value from undertaking a programme on that scale.

Brian Jenkins: I thoroughly endorse the overall concept that we should work together closely with Europe. Is the hon. Gentleman as concerned as I am that individual countries still want to maintain their independent sovereign operations? It is silly that we are all reinventing the wheel by producing our own arms for our own personal consumption to maintain employment in our own countries. It is much better done on a cross-European basis. However, if, for example, we were considering landing French planes on our aircraft carriers, we would realise that their carriers sometimes have completely different decks and the French planes would shoot across our decks and fall off the other end, as we do not have restraint barriers in place because we have vertical take-off and landing aircraft. That is the sort of difficulty that we have to struggle with.

Nick Harvey: I am certainly aware that the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier in the current French fleet operates on a completely different principle from the plans that we have for our own future aircraft carriers. That said, progress towards the building of our aircraft carriers seems so painfully slow that it may still be worth getting involved in some further dialogue about that. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. While I talk about the concept of sharing assets and ensuring that what we develop and what our allies develop are mutually compatible, there will also need to be technical considerations.
	I recall attending a dinner two or three years ago at which Mr. Nick Witney, who was then chief executive of the European Defence Agency, reported that at that particular moment 14 different EU member states were designing new tanks. With the best will in the world, that is absolutely ludicrous. If the Americans hope, as I am sure they do, that in the long term Europe will shoulder a bit more of the burden and stand on its own two feet, there is no hope whatever of our doing so while idiocies of that sort are taking place. That is why we have to recognise in the longer term that the capabilities that we build up need to be co-ordinated as much as possible with those of our alliesthe Americans, the Europeans and other allied countries around the world. General Sir Richard Dannatt said in a speech at the Royal United Services Institute last week:
	All elements of Defence of the future must remain relevant...we must have capabilities that are highly likely to be needed and used in the foreseeable future. We need relevant capabilities so that we can both intervene and contribute to stabilisation...We must be relevant to our Allies and bring the kind of capabilities that they need.
	I could not agree with him more. That is exactly the point I am trying to make.
	There has been debate, and quite rightly, about vehicles in Afghanistan. I, too, have visited Afghanistan recently and talked to those on the front line about the issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) and I heard, at first hand, from some of those who go out on patrols, who told us how unhappy they are about going out in their current vehicles. I entirely endorse the intervention made by the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer). He put his finger on that point exactly, and said that, as a matter of urgency, we needed to get more reinforced vehicles in place. He specifically mentioned weapons-mounted-installation kitWMIKsand I should like to take up that point. The men were begging us to make it our key message when we got home: they rate WMIKs, they want more of them and they want them as fast as they can get them.
	I applaud the Government's decision to procure Mastiffs. The Secretary of State deserves great personal credit for that, and if the rumours that he is not going to hold his post for much longer are true, it will be one of his lasting legacies. I also welcome what the Minister for the Armed Forces said at the Dispatch Box about Ridgback. It has been said that we need different vehicles for different purposes, and that there is no single solution, which is absolutely right. Equally, we delude ourselves if we suggest that we can send people out on patrol in any one thing that is capable of withstanding all the hazards that they face. We continue to refer to things as improvised explosive devices, but the truth is that they are rather less improvised than they used to be. They are becoming more industrial in scale. WMIKs are essential because they are at the more mobile, versatile and nimble end of the spectrum.
	I believe that I am correct in sayingI stand to be corrected if notthat the adaptation of WMIKs is being handled by a small company in Devon, the principal market of which is a marine one. It ill behoves me, of all people in this Chamber, to undermine the work of a small company in Devon, butand perhaps this is an unfair observationI cannot help contrasting what appears to be a lack of urgency on the part of the Government with previous policy. At the time of the Falklands war, the country's defence industries were told as a matter of absolute priority that they had to do whatever was necessary, and that the Government would pick the bill up and sort it out later. While what Ministers say at the Dispatch Box is perfectly rational, we need to ramp up the scale of such procurement work to an altogether different level. I dearly hope that the company in Devon is capable of doing what needs to be done, but if not, someone else needs to be brought in.

Gerald Howarth: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on one point. The WMIKs are not being built by Supacat, which is a company based at Dunkeswell, the managing director of which happens to be the nephew of my former secretaryso I know a bit about it. It is building the Jackal, which, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard from the Minister, is performing superbly and is a fantastic bit of kit. Supacat is not involved in the WMIK programme.

Nick Harvey: I am reassured by the hon. Gentleman. I said that I stood to be corrected; he has taken the opportunity to do so, and I am grateful to him. All I can say is that that was the impression of the men on the front line. I do not know whether it will be possible for me to track individuals down and put them right, but that was their impression.

Linda Gilroy: There may be some confusion about the Supacat vehicle, about which the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) knows in detail. It is, in fact, the result of an alliance between a small company in Devon, I think of ex-marines, that invented that agile vehicle, and Babcock, which operates the production line. It was an urgent operational requirement, and it is rolling off the production line at the rate of one a week. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be very welcome to visit.

Nick Harvey: I am very pleased to hear that. Perhaps I have been unfair in suggesting that there has been a lack of urgency. If they are coming off the production line at the rate of one a week, that is certainly good news. However, three or four weeks ago I was told at first hand by the guys going out on patrol that they urgently needed more of them. It is clear that casualties could have been avoided if people had not been going out in inappropriately light vehicles. I was at Headley Court last week and talked to a chap who had lost one leg and whose other was in a pretty bad state, and that was exactly the story that he told me.

Adam Holloway: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the dismay of many people in the squadron that is replacing the one that recently suffered casualties in inappropriate vehicles.

Nick Harvey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which adds to my point. I was reporting the opinion that I had picked up on the front line, and other people will back up what I am saying.
	I know that the Government are always keen to highlight the fact that we have had a decade of sustained growth in defence spending. That is correct in purely arithmetical terms, but it ignores the true cost of defence inflation. As we know, that runs way ahead of the retail prices index. We have had a succession of procurement disasters, and they have not been unique in the past decade. We have an appalling history of procurement mishaps over several decades, such as Eurofighter, Nimrod, the Chinook embarrassment that we have heard about today and even, frankly, the A400M. Things have invariably taken far longer than they should have, cost far more and ended up being supplied in smaller quantities than had been imagined.

James Arbuthnot: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's point that defence inflation runs far ahead of the RPI. That is my impression and it is what many people frequently say, but every time I or anybody else I know of has tried to pin down the exact evidence of it, it has been rather difficult to establish. Does the hon. Gentleman have any better evidence than we have been able to discover?

Nick Harvey: My premise is the testimony of various witnesses who have appeared in front of the right hon. Gentleman's Committee. If he has been unable to pin them down any more specifically at first hand, I fear that I have not been able to at second hand. Whatever the cause of the perception that defence inflation runs faster than the RPII would hesitate to hazard a guessthe evidence seems to be the fact that every procurement project ends up costing far more than was originally envisaged. That is rather like every significant, big public infrastructure project, of which the 2012 Olympics seems a current example. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point that the assertion is perhaps bandied about without any empirical evidence or data to back it up, but it seems to be essentially true.
	I have made visits to various companies, including QinetiQ, BMT Defence Services in Bath and others that are at the pioneering, research end of the process, and it is clear that some interesting ideas are being developed. In some cases, those companies have to proceed at their own risk, because the clunking way in which we procure things means that there is no market as yet and no public money available for them.
	I listened to the Government slipping out the announcement that the number of Type 45s would stop at six. We greatly missed the presence of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). Although the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who is a fine man and a great champion of RAF, did his best in absentia, he could not quite match the explosion that we would have heard from the hon. Member for New Forest, East.
	I am not convinced that the Government have made the wrong decision. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) intervened to make the point, quite rightly, that no matter what the Type 45's capabilities are, it cannot be in two places at once, and pointed to the general principle that there is a danger of running down the number of vessels in the Royal Navy fleet. I confess that I agree with the Conservative critique, but I am more sceptical about the idea that the vessels have to be Type 45 destroyers. The key question is whether two aircraft carriers can be defended with six destroyers. That, rather than any industrial consideration, should be the basis on which we judge whether the decision was right.

Bernard Jenkin: May I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Minister for arriving two or three minutes after he started? I seem to remember that the SDR originally envisaged 12 Type 45s. That was because at any one time there will be a number of ships in refit and a number on their way to, or returning from and recovering from, operations. Having only six Type 45s means a maximum of perhaps three deployable ships at any one time. That is a very limited capability, compared with what was originally envisaged.

Nick Harvey: The hon. Gentleman makes his point well. I am sure that we will continue to debate the issue. Having slipped the announcement out today, the Government will have to come back and discuss it in more detail on future occasions.
	I have made it clear that I agree very much with the procurement of the two aircraft carriers, which was essential to the logic of the 1998 SDR and remains an essential plank of our future defence capability. If we are to retain the ability to intervene in different parts of the world, on different bases and at different times, having two aircraft carriers will be essential to the flexibility that we will need to do so.
	However, I confess that I remain slightly mystified about what exactly is going to fly off those aircraft carriers. Although it is quite difficult to pin down when those carriers will come into service, it is nevertheless quite worrying that the joint strike fighter, which was generally assumed to be the aircraft that we would fly off them, is falling further and further behind schedule. The chief operating support officer for equipment at the Ministry of Defence has stated that the first carrier, when launched, will not operate a full complement of JSFs, as had been thought, and quite right he is, too. The US Government have reported that the project is over budget by $38 billion and that the time scale is slipping, too. The proposal is that the UK will take a second type of JSF, with vertical take-off, but that must, to a considerable degree, be sitting in second place in the US Government's order of priorities. We have more difficulties ahead of us on that.
	Another concern is helicopters. I am sure that the Minister will agree that upgrading and sustaining our helicopter fleet must be a key priority, not just for future capability, but for current operations.
	I was delighted, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), when the Department signed the contract for 70 much-needed future Lynx helicopters in 2006, and entered into the first crucial partnering agreement. The existing Lynx aircraft are almost time-expired, and it is clear that the new ones are urgently needed. Lynx is a much respected military asset that has served with distinction, but the Minister will be aware that there is speculation and uncertainty about the future Lynx project. There have been rumours that the contract could be cut or cancelled, but it is clear that that could not happen without severely impairing the capability of our forces.
	The cancellation of a contract that was already under way would be hugely expensive, and would become one of the greatest procurement scandals of modern times. AgustaWestland needs an end to that uncertainty, which is threatening to damage the contract and could even cause the company to lose key staff. I therefore urge the Minister to make clear today the Government's support for the future Lynx project and to give the House a clear and firm undertaking that the uncertainty over the contract will be cleared up before the summer recess, with a clear green light being given for progress on the basis of the existing order for 70 aircraft.
	In the field of procurement, it is vital that we do not make the quest for something that is absolutely great the enemy of procuring something that is good. General Dannatt said last week that
	there is no point in developing grand sounding future concepts if we fail to resource and structure to the required standard to deliver success today. If we do not succeed, the future for defence will look pretty bleak.
	We have to make our defence aspirations realistic, and I think the best way to do that would be to have another strategic defence review. I cannot emphasise strongly enough the need to deliver equipment to meet immediate needs as well as future planning, and to assess where we want the MOD and the country to be in the next 20 years or more. We need to determine what kind of force we should be building and maintaining for the future. How can we be a force for good, a military force and a humanitarian force on limited equipment?

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to address the House, may I point out that a large number of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye? If we are not careful, we will not fit everybody in. Simply out of consideration for colleagues, I would therefore plead for the briefest possible contributions.

John Smith: I will abide by your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and keep my remarks as brief as possible. I welcome the opportunity to take part in this afternoon's debate and begin by associating myself with the remarks of all the Front-Bench speakers who have paid tribute to the work of our armed forces and to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in recent days.
	I have the honour and privilege of having the Special Forces support unit in my constituency. According to long tradition and protocol, we do not draw attention in the Chamber to the work that it does, but the House needs to be reminded of the sacrifices that are made, and the courage that is shown, by the men and women of the Special Forces every day. Their acts of selflessness are almost indescribable, and I would like to place that on record.
	Defence procurement has been one of the most difficult issues facing any Government for as long as we can remember, but successive Governments over the years have done their best to try to improve the procurement system. I remember that when this Government entered into the strategic defence review, one of the first things that the Defence Minister responsible did was to call all the previous Defence Ministers into his office for unofficial private meetings. He asked them what they would do if they wanted to achieve greater efficiencies and improvements to the procurement system. The irony was that most of them said exactly the same thing: they said what they would like to happen. However, the problem lies in getting from the wish to the reality, and the Government have tried with varying degrees of success over the last decade to improve the procurement system.
	I will confine my remarks in my brief contribution to what I believe is one of the Government's most important procurement initiatives in an area that is often underestimated and undervalued. When we talk about procurement in these annual debates, we tend to talk exclusively about kittanks, planes and shipsand sophisticated technology. However, if we do not train our servicemen and women in the most up-to-date, state-of-the-art methods so that they can use this equipment, quite frankly we will not get the benefits and our service personnel will not get the security that they have a right to demand. The British armed forces have a problem in that much of their training is 20th-century training provided for 21st-century challenges and technologies. That has got to change.
	I am delighted that the Government have bitten the bullet, as the House well knows, and decided to undertake a massive transformation in this country's provision of military training. The defence procurement project to which I refer is, of course, the 11 billion military training academy proposed for St. Athan, which is going to modernise, update and completely transform how training is delivered. It will move away from chalk and talk, which has served us well in the past, towards student-centred and task-oriented training that uses the most modern technology available.
	Members on both sides of the House have referred to the sophistication and changing nature of the threat we face. We have to procure equipment, whether it be Snatch vehicles or anything else, to meet those changes. At the same time and in many respects more important, we also need to be quick in changing how we train our personnel to use the new equipment and face the new threats that they are up against. The older methods of providing such training served us hugely well in the past, but they are antiquated and out of date now. By integrating new technologies, we can have a step change or a quantum leap in the training of our personnel. They should be trained to the highest possible standards and we need the maximum flexibility to train and retrain them in how to use the new equipment and face the new challenges. We cannot do that under the existing system.
	It is more than seven years since the Government published their report on modernising defence training as part of the strategic defence review and we have seen a radical and incredibly successful transformation of how we train our officer corps. The creation of the idea for a military academy for training our officers in leadership and management on a tri-service integrated basis is important and nobody questions the success of it. Seven years on, however, we are still waiting for this academy to be provided, although the key decisions have now thankfully been taken so that we can provide the rest of our service personnel with the same modern futuristic training in phase 2 and phase 3, which is effectively technical skills training. The Government have already made the decision that two thirds of that trainingin aeronautics, mechanics, electrical engineering, information and communications technologywill be provided at the new huge military training academy on a 500-acre site in my constituency. That will have a dramatic effect on the efficiency and security of our armed forces, but we need to move ahead with it quickly.
	The Government announced in January that the so-called package 1 of the defence training rationalisation programme will continue apace under the auspices and leadership of the Metrix consortium. We have been expecting an announcementit was due in the spring, I believeon Main Gate 2, which is the next stage in this sophisticated procurement process. That decision has not arrived yet. Will the Minister give notice of when he thinks it will, because the sooner we get the project moving forward, the more our services will benefit?
	This, however, is a question not just of capability or of providing 21st century training for 21st-century challenges, rather than 20th-century training methods for 21st-century challenges, but of meeting our commitment to our servicemen and women under the military covenant and with regard to the relationship with the rest of society. We train our military personnel to a high standard, but more often than not the skills we give them are not recognised when they finish their military career and move into civvy street. Often, there is a delay in their finding work, although about 70 per cent. of service personnel find a job within a month of finishing service life, which is very good and a tribute to their calibre. About 94 per cent. find a job within six months.
	I understand that the main reason for that six-month delay is that many of our servicemen and women, even though they are highly trained in skills such as engineering, have to retrain to do in civvy street the same job that they were doing in the military. There are a number of such examples in my constituency, where large numbers of military personnel retire from the forces and seek work.
	The other great attraction of the defence training rationalisation programme is the fact that all the qualifications provided in engineering, computing and all those other areas will be recognised civilian qualifications. We will be able to say to our servicemen and women, We will not only train you in the military to the highest standard, but you will be able to use that training when you finish your service.

Andrew Murrison: Has the hon. Gentleman looked at the armed forces benefits calculator? If he has, he will have seen that a number of inflated claims are made for the notional value of training packages that people receive in the armed forces. Given what he has just said about their value in civilian life, would he perhaps like to comment on the claims made in the benefits calculator?

John Smith: Not particularly. I would like to concentrate on the future and what we intend to do to improve the situation and get things right. We owe it to our service personnel to do just that, and the best thing we can do is progress this vital procurement project as quickly as we can.
	Under the strategic defence review, when we said that we needed to reconfigure and restructure our forces to meet the new types of challenge, we then had to buy the modern kit and equipment to meet those same challenges. The most important thing was to train our personnel properly in modern techniques and in a modern way so that they could meet those challenges well. We have left that till last, and the Government need to get the matter absolutely right.
	Recently, I had the privilege of visiting the headquarters of Metrix, which is in the QinetiQ facility at Farnborough. I have just realised that I owe the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) an apology because, even though it was a private meeting, I should have written to him and told him that I was visiting his beautiful constituency. The training briefing that I received from Paul Swinscoe of Raytheon was one of the most impressive that I have ever heard. He told me how the training provided for our service personnel was to be modified, and anyone in the Chamber familiar with traditional apprenticeship training will know that it was very effective but a bit long winded. When I was a little boy it took seven years, but by the time that I left school it took only three. The old saying was that people would be in class all day listening to the instructor, but that some might get their hands on a bit of equipment if they were very lucky. However, the modern techniques are incredible: the use of virtual reality means that all students will be completely familiar with their equipment, whether it is an engine or a computer, before they set eyes on it or are expected to work with it. There has been a real transformation in the way that people are to be trained.
	I pay tribute to the Ministry of Defence and to Metrix for the work that they are doing in my area. They are working very closely with the local community in my constituency. The development covers 500 acres and, to put the project into perspective, I can tell the House that it is bigger than the London Olympic bid. For the past 12 months, there has been an ongoing dialogue with the local community in St. Athan in the Vale of Glamorgan, and that has worked extremely well. Both organisations have listened to the community, and amended some of their proposals accordingly.
	The local authority is also working really well on progressing the planning application for what is a huge development. I am sure that the Minister will understand that there is concern in my constituency that the planning is got right. There are two areas of particular concernhousing and the transportation infrastructurethat I hope that he will look at, perhaps in liaison with the integrated project team under Brigadier Neild.
	The development will provide 1,200 courses, and train thousands of students every year. Although there may be another new development quite close to the base, we do not have to worry about service accommodation. As part of the military covenant, the site will provide more than 90 per cent. of trainees with the best single-person accommodation in the world. It will all be brand new and purpose builtand so it should be. The new centre of excellence will make a wonderful impression on young recruits, but the people who work thereboth MOD and civilianwill also need to live nearby. Therefore, it would be a good idea for the Ministry to talk to the Vale of Glamorgan council, the local planning authority. Its local development plan must provide sufficient new housing to meet the needs of the staff who will be coming into the area.
	On transport, the Welsh Assembly Government have given a commitment to providing a surface link to the M4 before the academy opens. It is consulting Arup and considering the various options, and the Ministry of Defence and the Welsh Assembly Government must engage in close dialogue to make sure that the procurement project is advanced as soon as possible.
	I am grateful for the Government's courage in grasping the nettle when it comes to training. The project is going to be huge and complex. Various sites will have to be rationalised, and all the services brought together. That will be a huge challenge for us, but I genuinely believe that it is probably one of the most important challenges that we face. I think that if we meet the training challenge, we shall be the envy of the world.

James Arbuthnot: We have just been given a perfect example of the ingenuity and skill of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith). He managed to present a training programme as procurement, and I did not see you twitch for a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He brings the same ingenuity and skill to all that he does in the Defence Committee, and we are grateful to him for his work.
	Let me echo in particular what the hon. Gentleman said about the servicemen and women who have died in theatres of war. How lucky we are that they go out there, prepared to sacrifice everything in defence of the values of this country. They are the best of this country, and we are very lucky indeed as a result of what they give to us and what they give up.
	This is the first defence procurement debate that we have had since the man who was probably our last ever Minister for Defence Procurement resigned in order to take up other challenges. We do hope that he wins the race.  [Interruption.] We are talking about Le Mans in this instance.
	I think it right to pay tribute to the work of Lord Drayson. He brought great industrial knowledge and skill to his job, and I believe that industry recognised that he proved to be of great benefit to defence in general and to the country. His replacement, Lady Taylorshe is a great friend of mine, having been Chief Whip at the same time as mebrings great political skill to her job. It will be very beneficial to bring together those two skills. We hope that a degree of progress will be made by the Ministry of Defence once some steps have been taken in the work of procurement.

Kevan Jones: When the permanent secretary gave evidence to the Defence Committee, I predicted that the defence industrial strategy and the tempo of change in the procurement process would not survive the departure of Lord Drayson. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that prediction has come true?

James Arbuthnot: Yes. In fact, I was about to say something about the defence industrial strategy. The original strategy provided the vision that, for the first time ever, the Ministry of Defence would set out what the United Kingdom defence industry was going to do, what it was not going to do, where it should be developing its investments and what it should be planning for the future. The budget was to be clear, which is why the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was signed up to the strategy. Then Lord Drayson left and the premiership changedalthough not in that orderand seemed to break down. In November last year, we were told that Defence Industrial Strategy 2, which we had expected to be published before the end of last year, had to be delayed for a few months until the 2008 planning round.
	It seemed sensibleand industry seemed generally to support itfor the planning round to inform precisely where the defence industrial strategy was going. Unfortunately, the planning round itself seemed to run into the sand. I was delighted to hear today, for the first time, that it has actually finished, although I am not entirely sure what has come out of it. It seems that we are now looking forward to some sort of review that will go into the 2009 planning round. We are told that it will be published some time in the next few months, but we were told that about Defence Industrial Strategy 2 last year.
	Where is industry in all of this? It seems to have had the dialogue it had with Lord Drayson under the defence industrial strategy completely cut off. There seems to have been virtually no dialogue, so how can the industry decide where it is to invest and where things are going? There seems to be a sense that industry does not know what is happening because no one else does either. It is worrying that a sense of paralysis is coming from the MOD, and it is caused, frankly, by a budget that is so tight, given the level of operations we are facing, that things are beginning to break.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) spoke about the Defence Export Services Organisation. When I was the Minister for Defence Procurement, making all these mistakes that have been referred to from the other side of the House, I found that DESO was an absolutely outstanding organisation. It did really good work for this country and provided a link between the uniformed personnel, the industry and the MOD that was really valuable overseas. If the transfer of DESO to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform breaks that beneficial link, it will be a tragedy. I believe it probably will, frankly. I was delighted that my hon. Friend said that a future Conservative Government would reverse that policy.
	After all this muddle over the planning rounds, we have had a succession of different announcements. They do not seem to have been informed by any particular strategy on procurement, but we have had a welcome announcement on the future strategic tanker aircraft. The manufacturers seemed a bit surprised that we were buying that capability in the way we were, implying to the Defence Committee that it was probably a rather expensive and time-consuming way of achieving something that the Australians seemed to have achieved in a far shorter time scale. Nevertheless, the FSTA is a welcome renewal of a capability that we definitely need.
	I am delighted that we are closer to having some clarity on the carriers. Industry in this country will be pretty pleased that it has been announced that a contract will be signed. I understand that the contract for the carriers will be signed once the new ship company has had all the shareholder consultation that is necessary. I hope we have some clarity by the end of July.
	The trouble with the carrier decision is that it initially came out of the strategic defence review at the end of the 1990s, which was based on a surface fleet that was going to be much larger than our current surface fleet. It will now take such a high proportion of the defence budget that many peopleSir Michael Quinlan wrote an article in the  Financial Times in Februarywill wonder whether this capability should be provided in a different way. These are questions that need to be considered and answered. The point about the Type 45s being reduced to six is a worrying one. It does not look as though Britain, as a maritime power, will have the footprintif that is an appropriate thing to talk of in maritime termsaround the world with the number of ships we need. There is a definite quality in quantity.
	The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) said that perhaps the Government had made the right decision, and that we need more ships but they may not need to be Type 45s. However, it seems to me that the decisions we are taking reduce the number of ships that we have, and therefore the influence and reach of the Royal Navy, in a way that is potentially devastating to the influence of this country.
	I would like to know how many joint strike fightersthe things to go on the aircraft carrierswe are going to get. The initial announcement was that we were going to get up to 150 joint strike fighters. All in this House know what up to means; it means fewer than. Thus we will get fewer than 150 joint strike fighters, and I understand that each aircraft carrier will be able to take 36 of them. The Ministry of Defence has just told the Defence Committee that there was never any intention to deploy two aircraft carriers with a full complement of joint strike fighters at the same time, and I do not know what consequences that statement will have.
	Nevertheless, this will be a very capable aircraft. When I originally saw the proposals for the aircraft, I was very enthusiastic about it, partly because it would give us access to new technology, particularly on stealth matters, and partly because each aircraft was going to cost only $33 million. The price seems to have gone up a bit since then, and there seems to have been a bit of difficulty with the international traffic in arms regulationsITARas to whether we get access to the new technology.

Michael Jack: My right hon. Friend expresses a doubt about the number of the aircraft. From his standpoint on the Defence Committee, is he convinced on two groundsthe question of the exchange of classified information and the maturity of the test-flight programme for the short take-off and vertical landing version of this aircraftthat a decision on a commitment on numbers could yet be made?

James Arbuthnot: No, I am not convinced that a decision on a number of aircraft could yet be made. Nevertheless, it would be helpful to have a rather better indication than the current one of somewhere between 36 and 150. Essentially, the defence of this country has to be based on what we need to defend ourselves. We have been told by the Ministry of Defence that this decision will be taken on the basis of what we can afford. That obviously must be a very serious consideration in this decision, but the first duty of Government is to be able to defend the country, and that will require a suitable number of joint strike fighters.
	The future rapid effect systemFRESused to be more than just a vehicle acquisition programme, but that is what it seems to have become. As a vehicle acquisition programme, I believe it to be this country's most important procurement, because the armed forces are in constant contact with the enemy on the ground and they need proper protection. When our forces are dying because of roadside bombs when we have the capability to protect them better, we ought not to hold that procurement up by bureaucratic delay.
	I believe we were told last summer, at the trials of truth, that a decision would be made in November that there would be a downselect. In November, there was a downselect from three vehicles to three vehicles. That struck me as slightly strange, but we were also told at the same time that the downselect of the utility vehicle would be combined with the selector of the utility vehicle integrator. That has not happened. Therefore, the design of the vehicle is ploughing ahead somewhat strangely as no one knows who the integrator might be.

Kevan Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the delay is convenient for the Ministry of Defence? Irrespective of what it tells me in parliamentary answers, the Mastiff and other vehicles that have been purchased are part of the FRES family. They are being pushed further back to manage the commitment programme.

James Arbuthnot: I agree, but I do not know whether that is convenient for the MOD or whether it is confused on the issue. Baroness Taylor has told the Defence Committee that the Mastiffs are not part of the FRES programme, but surely they have to tie into that programme, in some definable and predictable way, so that we know how they react with each other.

Kevan Jones: The right hon. Gentleman and I attended the trials of truth when Lord Drayson said, in response to a question I asked him, where Mastiff and the other vehicles fitted in. We were told then that they were part of the FRES family, so something has clearly changed since the departure of Lord Drayson.

James Arbuthnot: Yes, indeed, and we need to have some answers to those questions. No doubt Baroness Taylor will give us some answers to those questions, but we need to ask them. The programme is important and I wish we could have more clarity about when we will get those vehicles.

Mark Pritchard: Obviously the decision on Piranha V from General Dynamics has been made, but my right hon. Friend is right to make the point about the vehicle integrator programme. Is he aware that BAE Land Systems in my constituency, which employs several hundred people, is keen to hear as early as possible who will be picked for that integrator programme, as it could well be that company?

James Arbuthnot: I am aware of that. BAE Land Systems is not alone in being very keen to discover who will be picked, because I am, and I am sure that the rest of the House is, too

Michael Penning: So are the soldiers.

James Arbuthnot: Let us never forget that. It is the soldiers who need to be protected. What they are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, they are doing for usnot for politicians but for this country and the stability of the world. We should pay them a great tribute for that.
	I echo what the Minister said at the beginning about the success of urgent operational requirements. These have been very successful. There is always the question of how, when some equipment comes into the MOD's inventory as the result of a UOR, the subsequent maintenance costs will be paid for. Will they continue to be paid from the contingency reserve?
	I also echo the words of the hon. Member for North Devon who said that the Future Lynx was an urgent matter. We are generally short of helicopters. I hope that Ministers will be able to provide more details once they have read the report of this debate, but it looks as though the number of helicopters owned by this country will be dramatically reduced over the next 10 to 15 years. However, this is the time when the number should be dramatically increased. Because of the roadside bombs and other threats in Afghanistan, it will be necessary for more work to be done by helicopter as opposed to by vehicle, so we need more helicopters.
	In that connection, I want to comment on the partnering arrangements, which seem to have worked very well, between the Ministry of Defence and Finmeccanica. They are a mechanism whereby the MOD can save a lot of money and can introduce the integrated operational systems that will really help it as well as bring in some of the industrial skills that it desperately needs. I hope that we can hear more about where partnering is going. It seems to have worked in the helicopter division and it ought to work in other divisions, too.
	On individual programmes, when a coroner makes strong remarks such as those that the coroner made recently on the tragic Nimrod crash, the whole country wants answers to the questions about whether those aircraft are airworthy. I am sure that there are answers to those questions, and we want them to be given so that the public can have confidence in what our men and women who are still flying those aircraft are doing.
	I turn now to the method of procurement. The threats that we face change constantly. There is no point in our trying to decide 15 years beforehand what needs to be the answer to a question that we do not yet fully understand. We need a series of platforms that are flexible and have the connections to allow us to evolve them. We need a procurement system that allows for precisely that change in procurement. In order to achieve that procurement system, we need personnel in the MOD who are well trained and have the commercial and industrial skills and the commitment to different programmes to deliver those procurements.
	We know that there will be a vast reduction in the number of people at Abbey Wood. We also know, because we have been told, that because of the operational tempo many of the people at Abbey Wood cannot be sent out for the training that they desperately need on current procurements. That strikes the Defence Committee as seriously short-sighted. The operational tempo should not mean that people are not trained to do properly the jobs that they need to do. That training should be absolutely essential in getting that important work done.
	Finally, we need skills not merely in the MOD but in the industry and the country as a whole. Unless we improve our science base in this country, and unless we can commit some of that science base to the sort of research that QinetiQ has been telling us leads to battle-winning capability, we will not have that capability. If we do not have that, we will be in real trouble.

David Crausby: Of course our forces are entitled to the best equipment. That could not be more graphically demonstrated than by the loss of so many of our brave young people this week. That equipment should be purchased, and at the right price. It should deliver security of supply and, above all, be dependable. The safety of our forces is paramount and value for money is vital, but I am obliged to say that in the main and in the long-term the most secure and dependable supply is a local supply manufactured and delivered by the UK for the UK and in the UK. I completely accept that urgent operational requirements and international co-operation are separate matters, but in the long term, in the main, we should buy British.
	The Government Front-Bench team may be a little tired of hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) about the cut-and-sew contract to supply our soldiers' uniforms. He is absolutely right to complain about the way in which British jobs were sold out when we allowed our uniforms to be manufactured abroad. The contract was placed with a company in Northern Ireland that immediately transferred production to China. That five-year contract is coming up for renewal, and I sincerely hope that we will soon see an end to the scandal of British soldiers wearing uniforms made by one of our commercial and military rivals.
	Ridiculously, British soldiers wearing uniforms made in China are working alongside Afghan army soldiers, who enjoy the luxury of having their uniforms tailored in Lancashire. Does anyone really believe that the Chinese or the Russians would dress their soldiers in Lancashire cotton? I do not. It would be funny if it was not so sad. All that we ask is that when the Ministry of Defence lets the contract again, we ensure that the product is produced in Britain, or at the very least in Europe, and that we are not in the appalling situation of supplying our troops with inferior kit that then has to be repaired in Britain.
	The aerospace industry also profits greatly from Lancashire. The British aircraft and aerospace industry is second in size only to America's, and it is a significant driver of economic growth and productivity. We should be enormously proud of it, and we must make certain that we look after it, not just because of the jobs involved, but in the interests of our military sovereignty. We have been able to maintain our position as the world's second largest defence supplier, and so we should. After all, we are the world's second largest defence importer. The British defence industrial base has a proud, successful history, but the smart trick will be to ensure that we have a long, successful future.
	We choose to spend more of our taxpayers' money on defence than many of our European partners, and we are right to do so. I hear all the talk about co-operation with our allies, but the first step towards that co-operation is for our allies in NATO to start spending the same amount of gross domestic product on defence as we do, and to be as prepared to put their soldiers and service people in harm's way as we are. Britain has the most open market in the world, and that, no doubt, drives down costs and improves the quality of our defence-related products. We must ensure that our willingness to allow access to our markets does not result in the decimation of British jobs or loss of essential skills and British intellectual property.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the policy of an open defence market has also led to significant investment in the UK from Thales, Finmeccanica and others? That has helped to support and perhaps grow our defence industry.

David Crausby: Absolutely; valuable contributions have been made. My concern is not so much about international ownership as about British production. From a defence point of view, as long as manufacturers are prepared to produce products using British workers, and to keep that under British control, I am happy. We must ensure, however, that such openness is not a door that opens only one way. Too often that is the case, certainly as far as the Americans and many of our European partners are concerned. We are, as my hon. Friend described, privileged to be involved with some first-class international aerospace co-operation programmes: the joint strike fighter, the Eurofighter Typhoon and the A400M, for example. They are first-class products and we must take full advantage of them.
	I am disappointed that we have suffered so much slippage in the A400M transport programme, and I am concerned at the way in which we work our ageing Hercules Lockheed C-130 fleet in such difficult circumstances in Iraq and Afghanistan. We must ensure that we provide first-class equipment for the transport of our armed forces. When the Main Gate approval decision was made in May 2000, the in-service date for the A400M was predicted to be December 2009. That was revised in May 2003 to an in-service date of March 2011, and Airbus Military recently announced that the initial aircraft delivery date will slip a further six to 12 months, taking us to December 2011.
	At Defence questions on Monday, I was disappointed with the vague answer that I received about the numbers of A400M aircraft that we intend to procure, and when we can expect them to come into service. The delivery dates for the 25 planes that we have ordered span 2010 to 2015, and I believe that this House is entitled to be informed in much more detail of the reliability and security of our transport fleet.
	Again, the joint strike fighter is an exciting prospect, but it is disappointing that it will not be ready in time to fly off our new aircraft carriersprovided, of course, that the carriers' launch dates do not slip from 2014 and 2016. The Eurofighter Typhoon has been another tremendous success, for Lancashire in particular, even if it was a long time coming. However, we are entitled to an early decision about whether the Government intend to purchase tranche 3.
	One problem for industry is that once existing orders for both air and maritime platforms are completed, there may be no new requirements for new platforms for some considerable time, so we need to make the very best of what is available to us now. Our industrial base needs certainty, too, and although the defence industrial strategy was a considerable achievement, we seriously need an update.
	In the Minister's opening remarks, he referred to the Government's review of the budget over the next three years, 10 years, or whatever, covering 2008-09 to 2010-11 and thinking even further ahead. I accept completely that they may need to make some difficult decisions, but whatever is agreed we should adopt a realistic and affordable programme. If we need to commit to an entire equipment programme, we should get on with it, instead of allowing programmes to slip further and further in the hope that no one will notice. Most importantly, if the Government are prepared to make such a decision, none of us should play party politics with the issue. It is far too important to play games with. I urge the Government Front-Bench team and the Ministry of Defence firmly to decide our future requirements, and to do so very soon.

Michael Jack: I should like to associate my comments with those of other right hon. and hon. Members about the brave members of our armed forces who have sacrificed their lives in operational theatres such as Iraq and Afghanistan. That was brought home to me only too graphically when an officer whom I got to know completed his tour of duty in Iraq and within a few months was having to tell his family that this year there would be no summer holiday with him present because he had to go back to Iraq. That brings home in human terms exactly what tours of duty really mean, particularly for those who are left behind in this country.
	Equally, none of the equipment programmes that we have discussed could occur were it not for the skilled personnel of the defence companies of this country. I think particularly of the BAE Systems work force at Warton in my constituencythe engineers, software developers and so forth. Without the human dimension, none of these systems would be possible.
	I am struck by one of the overriding themes of the debate, which was built on by the comments of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) about the British contribution. I am a great believer in what the United Kingdom's defence industrial base can do, either singularly or working in concert with our partners in Europe, to ensure that we maintain a capability over which we have some degree of control. That was recently brought home to me when I read in the newspapers of the possible removal of senior air force personnel in the United States after its new Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, questioned some of the blunders that had been made. In the same article, questions were raised about the future of American programmes such as the F22a highly complex, very expensive fighter that had attracted the attention of the Japanese in meeting their own air defence requirement. If that programme were to be sacrificed, the overtures that BAE Systems has been making to the Japanese about a possible purchase of the Eurofighter Typhoon would have much better prospects. Unless we can keep such programmes going, export opportunities such as that to Japan, or possibly even, in the long term, to India, will not arise. I could not support the idea that in future we should simply sacrifice our defence procurement requirements to whatever comes off the shelf from somebody else; that is not tenable. The example of the possible export of the Eurofighter illustrates why we must have control over those capabilities.

Mark Pritchard: My right hon. Friend makes an absolutely vital point, which is that this country has its own defence requirements. We want to support the British defence industry, but when there are countries that are purchasing the same products as we are, and when we need that kit and capability, it is vital that those products are delivered to this country first and to a foreign country second.

Michael Jack: I concur with my hon. Friend's contribution; I am glad that he underscores the importance of what I have said. In the aerospace industry, we are good at doing what we are doing, whether constructing aircraft, missiles, radar or ancillary equipment, or, in the case of Rolls-Royce, helping to build, in concert with others, the engines that power those aircraft.
	I salute the Government for their investment with BAE Systems in the further development of unmanned and autonomous air vehicles, which is very much what future, post-Eurofighter Typhoon projects will be based on. However, if we are to make those projects work, or to update projects such as the Eurofighter Typhoon, we must keep in place the skilled work forces to enable the job to be done. That brings us essentially to the role of the Government as the single most important customer for those companies and technologies, and underscores the need to ensure that the objectives of the defence industrial strategy and the defence technology strategy weave their way through what the MOD does in future.
	I was concerned when my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, indicated that there might have been a breakdown in the work of the noble Lord Drayson on the partnership arrangements, of which he was the author, that were evolving with industry under the defence industrial strategy. If that breakdown becomes reality, the chance of sustaining such teams of experts becomes ever more difficult.
	The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East mentioned tranche 3 of the Eurofighter. Could those on the Government Front Bench, in the spirit of clarity and openness for which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire asked, for once be candid with the House about exactly what is going on? About a year ago, I sat in this House listening to the Chief of the Air Staff, who said, on the record, that a number of optionszero, 22, 44 or 88 aircraftwere being considered. I am aware that other variations on those numbers and timings of the off-take are being considered. I am also aware that the Government have a cash-flow problem, and that other partners in the Eurofighter consortium have agreed their off-take.
	Whatever the numbers being considered, they have an implication. If we go for a lower number than we should in order to be compatible with the Government's promise that they remain committed to all 232 Eurofighter Typhoons, it could mean a substantial rearrangement of the work-share programme, which would affect the thousands of jobs in the aerospace industry in the north-west. BAe did an excellent job with Oxford Economics of establishing what that would mean in personal economic terms. There are about 60,000 jobs associated with the aerospace industry in the north-west, among 1,200 companies, which all work together on major projects. If we were to reduce the numbers, there could be some significant knock-on effectsnot just at BAe's plants, but in other small and medium-sized enterprises that are the lifeblood of the north-west's engineering economy.
	The Government also ought to be clear on the idea that they can somehow trade the Government-to-Government deal of 72 Eurofighter Typhoons with Saudi Arabia against their obligations to ensure that the RAF is properly equipped with the right number of planes. There should be candour on these matters in the House, instead of the ducking, weaving answers that I have had every time I raise the subject. The work force at Warton would like some degree of certainty about the future. They recognise the stretched nature of the defence budget, but the time is right for the Government to make their views clear. It is interesting that I say that at a time when we read in the newspapers that tests in United States air force ranges in Nevada on the operational capability of the Eurofighter Typhoon show how well the aircraft is performing in what is as near as possible an operational activity. If the long-term export prospects of the plane are to be realised, the more the UK Government honour their commitment to the project, the better.
	I come to the joint strike fighter project, which was referred to earlier. I would like to see some tangible demonstration that the Government are, as Lord Drayson made clear, confident that they have solved the technology transfer issues that underpin the operational capability of the aircraft. No one has said anything, but Lord Drayson was very clear. He said that if that point was not demonstrable he would walk away from the project. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire indicated that the clock is ticking on the decisions that have to be made about what will operate from the aircraft carriers. The Government owe it to the House to tell us in a straightforward way whether the United States are playing ball and showing openness on that point. I seek a reassurance from the Minister that we will not go too far down the road of committing ourselves to the next stages of the joint strike fighter process until we can be certain that the short take-off and vertical landingSTOVOLversion of the aircraft is capable of delivering, as they say, what it says on the tin.
	Finally, I turn to the matter of unmanned air vehicles and autonomous air vehicles. It is interesting that names such as HERTI, Fury and Taranis are becoming the new lexicon of the aerospace industry in the north-west. I was delighted to read that HERTI has been deployed successfully in Afghanistan and that Fury has been to the San Diego exhibition in the United States. It demonstrated to the Americans that, in a relatively short time, we in the United Kingdom have been able to develop an unmanned air vehicle with a weapons capability, at a price that is probably much lower than that of the equivalent American product. That is extremely good news from the standpoint of our armed forces and industrial base. Again, it shows the benefit of our being able to maintain our own aerospace capability.
	Some 250 people are currently employed on those projects, and in fairness the Government have supported Taranis. I hope that they will continue to provide an economic underpinning for those vital new technologies. They show once again that British innovation can speedily develop systems that are much needed in the field, at a lower cost than the Americans and probably with a higher operational capability.
	I hope that, if the Minister is not able to deal with all my points in his wind-up, he will at least write to me in some detail to supply me once and for all with some hard answers, particularly on tranche 3.

Linda Gilroy: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who always talks not only in a spirited way about his constituency industry interests but knowledgeably about the aerospace industry.
	I wish to mention the work of the Defence Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) said that it works on a cross-party basis to try to get good value for money from the defence industry, and that is true under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). Some of the time that I most enjoy in this place is spent in the Defence Committee.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South, also drew on his considerable experience to remind us in no uncertain terms that procurement and its failures are as old as warfare itself. He and other hon. Members said that we are perhaps not paying a high enough premium for the defence of this country, and I agree. I hope that we will be able to set out a strong case for that.
	I am not absolutely convinced of the need for a new strategic defence review. The Government have announced a review against the background of the security and resilience strategy, and the Defence Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry examining the implications of that strategy from the MOD perspective. That review may well come up with some answers more quickly and in a more focused way. I hope that it will provide the certainty that people are looking for on certain matters, but of course the history of the issue is strewn with a slightly different experience. Maybe I will turn out to have been over-optimistic.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South, said that Nostradamus had had some success in his predictions. That reminded me of Machiavelli, who advised republicansnot princes in this casethat to try to guide a flood when it came, they needed to build bridges and dams. In the same way, we need to be agile in procurement and build capabilities that can flex to fast-changing circumstances and the threats that we face. The Government's need to weave that into the procurement process is perhaps greater than ever before.
	It is certainly important that the Government get procurement right. There is always a tension between procurement and personnel in the defence budget, and money lost through overruns, delays and project difficulties is money that could have been spent on pay, accommodation, personnel and other improved kit. During the course of our inquiry we heard about major changes in the Defence Logistics Organisation and the Defence Procurement Agency, and about the transformation into Defence Equipment and Support. We need to exercise a considerable degree of caution about the speed of those changes, particularly given the reductions in personnel, although the savings from that may, in the end, be welcome. However, speed in change can sometimes result in cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. We will need to keep a close eye on that over the coming months.
	Before I move on to naval matters, as hon. Members would probably expect me to, let me say that we in Devonport are still trying to get our heads round the idea of becoming a base for the manufacture of vehicles for use by the Army and the Marines. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to clarify a little the different types of vehicle that we are talking about and the roles that they play. There is a huge demand for the Supacat vehicles that are being manufactured in Devonport, and they are welcome when they arrive at their deployed destination.
	A year after Babcock took over responsibility for Devonport Management Ltd, which is no moreall the logos have been changed, and Devonport is now the UK base for Babcock Marineand following the naval base review, there is a great deal of interest in Plymouth and Devonport in what the process means for our local industry and work force. I am looking forward to a meeting in early July, to which I will bring some of the community leaders from Plymouth to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces what the changes may involve.
	Certain questions flow for Devonport from the fact that the joint venture has been formed and that the order for the future carriers can now be placed. HMS Ark Royal and HMS Illustrious are planned to leave service in 2012 and 2015 respectively. In the meantime, they will still require maintenance and docking, especially as they are getting older, as older vessels often need more attention. There is some interest in how that will pan out, as Devonport undertook refits and maintenance on the Invincible class in the 1980s and early 1990s.
	There will obviously be disappointment about what I am sure was a difficult decision to make on the Type 45s, if for no other reason than that HMS Daring has well exceeded expectations in her sea trials. The six Type 45 destroyers that have been ordered to replace the Type 42 destroyers will certainly be a great asset to the Royal Navy. I would like to knowif not today, then at some pointwhether consideration is being given to extending the lives of the later Type 42 destroyers. Even without the Sea Dart, they could still be useful in undertaking some of the general purpose tasks, to which I will return when I talk about the numbers of frigates and destroyers, that were referred to earlier.
	Before that, let me mention in passing the Astute programme. As the Defence Committee has uncovered in so many of our inquiries, it is essential that sufficient orders are placed, in order to keep up the drumbeat and to keep up the skills base. That is as important to the future deterrent as it is to the current Astute programme, not only to ensure that the Navy receives the submarines that it requires, but to ensure that the skills necessary to build those submarines are not lost before work begins on the successor to Trident. I hope that the Under-Secretary will confirm that it is still the intention to order seven boats and tell us that he understands that confirming when orders for further units will be forthcoming would allow BAE Systems to plan with greater certainty and, potentially, keep the costs down.
	Much has been made of the numbers of frigates and destroyers being built but, as I set out in considerable detail in my Adjournment debate on 5 March, I believe that simply building greater numbers of ships is an over-simplistic answer. We need a wide, balanced and flexible range of capabilities. The Royal Navy's warships have always been multi-purpose. Destroyers protect carriers and amphibious ships from air attack, while frigates have the primary role of hunting submarines. Both have the secondary role of carrying out a range of medium to low-level tasks, from anti-piracy and counter-drugs operations to humanitarian missions and guard ship duties.
	We have always ensured that the ships are state of the art, in order to be effective in their primary roles. The Type 23 frigate, together with its Merlin helicopter, is the quietest and most effective anti-submarine frigate in the world. The Type 45 destroyer, with its Aster missiles and Samson radar, is also world class. However, this has had the effect of pushing up costs to the point at which it is no longer possible to build them in sufficient numbers to fulfil their secondary roles. The cost of a Type 45 is approximately 1 billion.
	It is therefore time for us to consider separating the two roles. A frigate undertaking humanitarian operations in the Caribbean during the hurricane season does not really need to carry anti-submarine weaponry. Nor does a destroyer intercepting pirates off west Africa really need the world's most advanced anti-aircraft missiles. Perhaps it is time for us to develop a small, flexible design for an escorta light frigate that we can build in sufficient numbers to carry out that multitude of tasks. The future surface combatant has been mentioned, and I hope that the Minister will set out whether that is the direction that the future surface combatant will take us in, with a capability to be adapted by spiral insertion to meet what are by common consent the uncertain and changing threats and roles that we shall face in the future.
	In conclusion, I shall return to the point at which I started, and stress the importance of getting the underlying procurement process right. Our Defence Committee report was broadly positive about the direction of travel, although we certainly have concerns about the speed of change and about the generation and mix of skills. The aim must be not just to take out cost but to improve quality and speed of decision making, and I believe that the Chair of the Select Committee was absolutely right to sound a note of caution. The coming months promise to bring plenty to keep our Committee busy on the procurement front, and I look forward to the discussions that I shall shortly have with community leaders about the prospects for Devonport's continuing important role in supporting the Royal Navy and our vital deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mark Pritchard: I should like to put on record my tribute and thanks to the brave men and women of our armed forces who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in other places around the world. They do an excellent job and we are all rightly proud of what they do.
	The future rapid effect systemFREShas been mentioned today. My constituents who work at BAE Land Systems, and those who work at associated engineering companies in my constituency and in wider Shropshire, were disappointed by the decision on Piranha 5 and General Dynamics, which preferred the VBCI vehicle, but we have moved on from our disappointment and hope that the Ministry of Defence will now look closely at the excellent work force at BAE Land Systems and in Shropshire generally, and that it will consider my constituency for the vehicle integrator programme. The Minister will know, having visited my constituency, that Shropshire has a long and proud history of serving Her Majesty's armed forcesthose in uniform and civiliansand that there is a wide, sound industrial base in the county and across the west midlands.
	I also pay tribute to the Defence Support Group and to all those who work in the Army Base Repair Organisation and the former Defence Logistics Organisation, which has now been re-branded. Nevertheless, the demand for logistics and the supply of urgent operational requirements continues and the work force in my constituency and the county of Shropshire more widely continue to be called on to deliver UORs, often at very short notice, to Afghanistan and Iraq, yet they deliver time and time again. I hope that the Minister will pay tribute to them on the record in his concluding remarks.
	I hope that the Minister will also take the opportunity to ensure that the Army Base Repair Organisation has a long-term future. Some months agoperhaps over a year agothere was a question mark over it, but after the excellent report of the Defence Select Committee, the Government rightly recognised that the attrition on armed vehicles in Afghanistan and Iraq and the greater wear and tear on them would mean further repairs. After the Defence Select Committee review, as well as a review by the MOD, Ministers took the right decision and said that ABRO should not be downsized or relocated but extended, and called for further recruitment to it. I pay tribute to ABRO's work. Having briefly visited Iraq with the armed forces parliamentary schemeindeed, I also visited Afghanistan just some weeks agoI can pay personal tribute to ABRO on its excellent work. Certainly, the 1st and 2nd Battalions of the Yorkshire Regiment pay tribute to its excellent work in getting damaged vehicles and those broken down back to the front line.
	The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith), sadly no longer in his place, alluded to issues about defence training, the defence training review and the defence training rationalisation programme. I am not trying to hark back to the past, as clearly a decision has been made for the programme to go to RAF St. Athan, but the Minister needs to come clean not just with the people of Shropshire and the west midlands, but with the people of Wales. Some real issues remain about the delivery of the programme, particularly on the lack of infrastructure in Wales and the squabbling between the Welsh Assembly, the Ministry of Defence and local authorities. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan himself made some comments about that. He did not go into too much detail, but there were enough hints of concern in his speech to suggest that the defence training review programme might well be delayed. If that happens, it will be bad not only for Wales, but for Her Majesty's armed forces. I hope that the Minister will look again at the county of Shropshire, where we already have the infrastructure and the right people in place and where we have the experience necessary to continue to deliver the sort of defence training that Her Majesty's armed forces quite rightly expect and deserve.
	One key issue that the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan did not mention is the fact that training can be delivered only if there are trainers to deliver it. Local surveys carried out in my constituency by the Public and Commercial Services Uniona mostly excellent union in much, not all, of what it doesrevealed that the majority of experienced, hard-working, dedicated and loyal MOD trainers were for many reasons unable or unwilling to move to Wales. The differential in house prices was one of the key reasons, as house prices around St. Athan are about 25 or 30 per cent. higher than in some of the Shropshire locations. That is a real issue. The Government might find themselves with a training establishmentthe building and roads might eventually be builtbut the Minister might find that there are no trainers to deliver the training. That is a strategic issue about the procurement of defence training, which will obviously impact on the British armed forces as a whole.
	In my final minuteI have other things to say, but I am aware that time is running out for other Members who want to contribute to the debatelet me deal with the issue of hypermass technology. In the debate on Trident, I mentioned that the defence industrial strategy made no reference to such technology. The Government need to look at that. While I support nuclear, there are instances in which weapons of overwhelming force might need to be used when we could not use a nuclear weapon. We have only conventional missiles. We need something between a conventional missile and a nuclear missile so that we have more flexible options when dealing with increased threat.
	On unmanned aerial vehicles, while I completely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), it is right that we should have as much capability as we can within the UK. Without going into geographical detail, my concern is that in parts of theatre where UAVs are being used, it is not necessarily always British hands that are involved in every application of the UAV mission. That could raise conflict of interest issues.
	On cyber defence and the defence industrial strategy, we know that although China is a great nation in many ways and that it has a fine people, its Administration have perhaps not covered themselves in glory on human rights and a range of issues. We know from the head of our own Security Service that China is very interested in our military secrets. Even in the House, we have been told about cyber attacks from outside, potentially from China.
	I hope that the defence industrial strategy will carefully consider developing a British capability not only for cyber defence but for cyber offence, because as military equipment becomes more reliant on integrated systems, fly by wire, special forces and aircraft such as the Typhoon, having the defence systems to protect ourselves from cyber attack will be critical and we must also have the capability to go on the offensive should we choose to do so.

Kevan Jones: I associate myself with the condolences expressed to those men and women of our armed forces who lost their lives in Afghanistan in the last week or so. In particular, I pay tribute to Corporal Sarah Bryant, the first woman to lose her life in Afghanistan. As a member of the Defence Committee for the last seven years, I have seen young men and young women doing a tremendous job in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and we should recognise the tremendous debt that we owe not only to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the last week, but to those men and women who continue to serve.
	I do not agree with the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) that we need a strategic defence review. The major strategic issues are still as they were in 1998 and a review would be a diversion from where we are now. The issue that we face is the fact that we have high-tempo operations in Iraq and in Afghanistan alongside what my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) put forward on the legacy programmes. We can all say that we would like to cancel or change them, but in practice it would be difficult to do so. The two run side by side.
	The Ministry of Defence has been good in responding to demands in theatre, such as in Afghanistan. Urgent operational requirement has worked and I pay tribute not just to the people in the MOD who made that happen, but to industry. Not only large defence companies but small defence companies and suppliers have stepped up to the mark and delivered quickly. We have seen that clearly with vehicles, as well as with things that we do not and should not talk about, such as technology around counter-measures and improvised explosive devices, which is saving lives in Iraq and in Afghanistan. That applies not just to our servicemen and women, but to those of other nations.
	In the last few years, it has been common to kick defence around as a political football, but I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South. Since I have been a member of the Defence Committee, we have had a consensus on a lot of issues, which is how it should be. Let us make it clear: all parties will go into the next general election with no commitment radically to increase the amount we spend on defence, although I, like my right hon. Friend, would argue for more defence expenditure. No one is going to do that, so we are facing some difficult decisions in respect of our armed forces.
	Senior military personnel are in the same position. They may think that kicking these matters around will lead to easy newspaper headlines that will change things, but they must understand that they too have to make sure that we get value for money, in terms of both equipment and military organisation. Even though our Army has reduced in size over the past few years, there is still a debate to be had about its present structure.
	Like most people, I welcomed the defence industrial strategy. It clarified the position regarding our armed forces' equipment, and also in respect of industry. I was sceptical about whether it would outlast Lord Drayson, and unfortunately I have been proved right. I said as much to the permanent secretary at the MOD when he came before the Defence Committee about a year ago. The uncertainty described earlier by the Chairman of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), is not good: we need clarity, but I understand the pressures that the MOD is facing. The money that needs to expended very quickly on our armed forces' high-tempo operations must be laid alongside the existing defence budget.
	That is a difficult thing to do, but sometimes I wish that the MOD would tell us the reality of the situation rather than trying to con us that, for example, the future rapid effect system is all about design, because it is not. If someone were to tell me that the vehicles that we bought for Afghanistan and Iraq were to be incorporated into the FRES requirements, I would accept that. It is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, but the MOD should tell us what is happening. That would be better then insulting our intelligence by maintaining that something different is going on.
	We have been promised a new chapter on the defence industrial strategy, and we need one to remove the uncertainty facing industry. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) talked about skills, and I have said on numerous occasions that the skills that we need in our defence industry cannot be turned on and off like a tap. Decisions need to be taken now, and some major projects may have to be cancelled. For example, I welcome today's announcement about Type 45 destroyers, as that will give the rest of the defence sector the clarity that it needs.
	Companies will know where to go for investment, and there will be an improvement in the investment that is made in skills. That is important, as it takes monthsand sometimes many yearsto upskill people so that they can handle the new technologies. That is why it is important that we get the clarity, to which I have referred, as quickly as possible.
	The Government can be proud that the procurement process has had an impact on regions such as mine. For example, the two new carriers will have a major impact in the north-east of England. That will be felt in the traditional shipbuilding industry that will handle their fabrication, but all sorts of small and medium-sized industries will benefit as well. It used to be that large industries produced ships and other big pieces of kit, but those days are gone. Even so, the defence industry is worth about 2 billion to the regional economy of the north-east, with much of the work being carried out by SMEs.
	That work is very ably supported by the company Northern Defence Industries, which champions the supply chain in the north-east and Yorkshire. It also works with the North West Aerospace Alliance to ensure that SMEs can access some of the work that is coming forward.
	We need the clarity that I have referred to. Tough decisions must be made, and the sooner, the better. We need to make sure that we can produce the necessary equipment for our armed forces, and our service personnel must have confidence that they will get the kit that they will need in the future. Finally, we must make sure that the industrial base for this country's defence industry is retained and strengthened as a result of the key decisions that we take.

Angus Robertson: It is right and proper for me to add the condolences of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, the party of Wales, to those already expressed following the tragic loss of service personnel in Afghanistan.
	Procurement is not just about the acquisition of new assets; it is also about the responsibly managed transition from the systems that they are replacing. That applies most acutely to the Nimrod replacement programme, in which the current MR2 fleet based at RAF Kinloss in my constituency will be superseded by the MRA4.
	I am pleased that the Secretary of State visited RAF Kinloss today. He will have met and heard from the air and ground crew as well as the civilian contractors, who do an excellent job and are working hard within the resource constraints to ensure that the appropriate safety standards are met. He will also have heard the concerns of the civilian work force and their union about job security. I hope he was able to provide the reassurances that they sought.
	As matters stand, BAE Systems expects to conclude flight-test activities on its three Nimrod MRA4 development aircraft later this year. Nine MRA4s are under contract for the RAF, and there is also an option for the three refurbished design and development aircraft. It has been reported in the specialist aviation press that the first production MRA4 will achieve power on by September this year and will then enter an extended equipment fit, load and test programme before making its first flight next year. Under the current programme schedule, BAE Systems will deliver four production MRA4s to RAF Kinloss by the end of 2010, when the new type is expected to be declared to be in-service.
	Colleagues in the Defence Committee, a number of whom are still in the Chamber, recently called on the MOD to reconsider its options in relation to the Nimrod MRA4. Without dismissing the awful track record of the programme or the lessons that need to be learned from it, I should stress that most of the costs have already been incurred. To walk away now would mean losing massive sums of taxpayer investment.
	Although the delays and budgetary increases in the Nimrod MRA4 programme are of course cause for concern, another particular and deadly problem has resulted. Owing to the important capability of the existing Nimrod and the need for its vital services in a range of theatres, the 40-year-old Nimrod MR2 fleet has been pushed to the limits. In the recent case of Nimrod XV230, it proved fatal. Shortly after refuelling over Afghanistan on 2 September 2006, the aircraft exploded near Kandahar, killing all 14 personnel aboard. It was the biggest UK loss of life since the Falklands war, and more than half the victims were my constituents.
	On 5 November 2007, a further mid-air incident took place, this time when Nimrod XV235 was over Afghanistan. The crew noticed a fuel leak during-air-to-air refuelling operations. After issuing an in-flight mayday, the aircraft was landed successfully. The Minister of State admitted recently that there had been at least 111 fuel leaks since Nimrod XV230 exploded.
	On 4 December 2007, the report of the findings of the official board of the inquiry into the loss of XV230 was published. Four separate factors were listed as having contributed to the accident, and are a matter of public record. On 23 May 2008, only a few short weeks ago, the coroner who led the inquest into the deaths stated that the entire Nimrod fleet had
	never been airworthy from the first time it was released to service,
	and urged that it be grounded. The assistant deputy coroner for Oxfordshire, Andrew Walker, added:
	I have given the matter considerable thought and I see no alternative but to report to the secretary of state that the Nimrod fleet should not fly until the Alarp
	as low as reasonably practicable
	standards are met.
	The Chairman of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), said earlier that we needed answers. I agree. We have been given no detailed statement, or indeed any detail at all. What I would describe as a badly advised and badly timed press release was issued only minutes after the deputy coroner had announced his ruling. There cannot have been time for serious consideration of the points that he had made.
	Last December, the Secretary of State assured Members that Nimrod was safe, citing a report by QinetiQ. It has proved difficult to establish whether that was factually correct. It has taken freedom of information requests to establish that the report said that the aircraft would not be fully safe until its 30 recommendations had been implemented. All but one of those recommendations related to a failure to implement mandatory airworthiness regulations.
	The inquest heard that if the risk of something going wrong on a plane is only tolerable, MOD rules stipulate that it must be further reduced to make it as low as reasonably practicableALARPbefore the plane can be declared safe. The QinetiQ report cited by the Secretary of State as showing the aircraft was safe in fact found that it was only tolerably safe but, because of the 30 problems, it was not ALARP.
	It is still not ALARP. In a letter to me, the Secretary of State for Defence said that of the 30 recommendations, 21 have been acceptedusing the present tenseby the MOD and are still being implemented. Six relate to air-to-air refuelling, which is no longer done with Nimrods. Three more are stillagain, present tensebeing considered.
	Group Captain Colin Hickman, who is in charge of the safety of the Nimrod fleet, admitted to the coroner that the remaining Nimrods were not ALARP and would not be so until the end of this year. Asked if this process could be speeded up, Hickman replied:
	No, it is driven by resources.
	Reassurances need to be given about transitional arrangements from the MR2 to the MRA4 and about safety standards for ageing systems facing replacement as part of a managed procurement process. We need answers on this. I would welcome the Minister giving some detail of all the 30 recommendations. How many have been fully implemented and when will the rest of them be implemented? It is only fair that we have the answers.
	Some say this is a technical point, but I think it is easily understood by the man in the street. The situation now with the Nimrod fleet is as if a driver had been notified of 30 improvements necessary for his car to pass an MOT and, nearly two years later, he is only partially through the mandatory work and is still considering whether to go through with some of the other repairs. It would not be allowed in a car. Why does the MOD think it is okay for a plane? Given that the ALARP standard is the MOD's own standard, I do not understand why it is not complied with. I hope the Minister will explain that this evening.

Bernard Jenkin: I shall endeavour to be extremely brief and I join the tributes paid by colleagues to our armed forces.
	The background to this procurement debate is of course what General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue, Chief of the Defence Materiel, told the Select Committee about the difficulty he is facing in this planning round, PR08. He said that it was different from anything that had gone before and was worse than the planning round of 2007. He had to think back to the 1970s for anything comparable. The essential problem is that the Government spending increases on defence have simply not kept up with either the costs of procurement or of operations.
	As Lord Guthrie, the Chief of the Defence Staff, said at the time, the SDR was never fully funded. It is interesting that Ministers are keen to take military advice when it suits them but when they were presented with that advice back in 1998, they refused to take it. We have been living with the consequences ever since.
	The Prime Minister likes to laud the 6 billion of urgent operational requirements that have been delivered to our front-line forces over recent years, but unfortunately UORs do not address the shortage of baseline funding. Even PR08 foresaw a mere 1.5 per cent. real-terms increase to 2011, a minute increase compared with the increases given to other Departments over the years. Defence cost inflation, and the ring-fenced spending for Trident, for housing, for pensions and for the council tax rebate pretty quickly whittle that increase down to something minimal, if it is an increase at all. The Government's failure properly to fund the main equipment programme over the past 10 years has a direct consequence on operations, a very painful one, as the exchanges on Snatch land rovers demonstrated.
	What capabilities do we really need? The Minister of State said on Monday, and repeated today, that the MOD now aims to
	shift the balance of defence procurement to support operations. [ Official Report, 16 June 2008; Vol. 477, c. 663.]
	That is a highly dangerous concept to pursue and it is very unsound to premise future operations on present operations.
	Churchill always said that the War Office is always preparing for the last war, and it seems that nothing changes. What sort of wars will we be fighting in the next 30 years, which is the realistic time horizon on which we should be planning the major equipment programme? That is difficult to tell at the best of times, but we know that weapons proliferation will increase and that a huge shift is taking place in the distribution of power among the world's superpowers. Conflicts and crises will become increasingly complex and unpredictable.
	At present, the Government's interventionist foreign policy simply does not match their defence policy of limited resources. Last week, General Dannatt said that
	the Army of tomorrow must retain the capability to fight Major Combat Operations (MCO)s and Stability Ops, both simultaneously and sequentially.
	He is obviously correct in his assessment of the type of operations the British armed forces need to be able to conduct, and it is the duty of politicians to provide the armed forces with the capabilities they need and to provide best value for the taxpayer.
	The idea of tailoring the armed forces to short-term requirements is too short-sighted. We accept that the opposite strategy of trying to provide for every eventuality at any time is too expensive. We need to strike the balance for which the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) argued, between readiness for immediate operations and readiness for the longer term.
	In the face of that and in the current low-threat environment, we need what Admiral Sir Sandy Woodward has called a core force strategy. That means that we need to spend the money on the big platformsthe expensive bits of kiteven at times of low threat, so that we are in a position to build up our armed forces at a later date should the threats change and that be necessary. The danger of transferring resources from the major equipment programme to short-term operations currently being undertaken is that we are playing poker with the future of this country. We have no idea what threats we might face in five, 10 or 15 years' time.
	Those were the arguments that Ministers deployed in favour of renewing the Trident missile system and the Trident submarine. Those same arguments apply to every other aspect of our defence policy, and it is short-sighted to pursue the policy that the Government are beginning to pursue. The problem with the strategic defence review is not its content or its shopping listeveryone agreed that it was a pretty good blueprint for defence policy and the armed forces; the problem is the lack of money.

Michael Penning: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) for curtailing his excellent speech, as it gives me time to get in. He has great knowledge in this area, and the House will have missed the rest of his speech this evening.
	I have no defence interests in my constituency. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have brilliantly defended the local businesses, services and units in their constituencies. My constituency contains a brand new cadet hut, of which we are very proud. It replaced the Territorial Army centre in my constituencywe were also very proud of that, and it is sorely missed. So I speak very much as a Back Bencher who is defending and speaking up for the troops in the armed forces.
	I thought that the contribution made by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) about uniforms was very interesting and factually correct. If the Minister were allowed to go to a quartermaster's department in an average regiment to take a look at combat kitthe uniform that has been handed back inhe would find that most of it had got the backside busted out of it. The quality of the kit being purchased from the Chinese is just not up to scratch, and it does not last as long as the uniforms that were made in this country. After the contract went abroad, it was obvious that the uniforms just did not last as long, as any quartermaster who has the guts to talk to the Minister will tell him. That is to do with quality, although lots of different things have been triedfor example, double-stitching on certain parts of the uniform. The particular uniform that I have been issued with by the armed forces parliamentary scheme is simply fantastic, but it does not look anything like what is being issued to my friends who are serving in the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards. The uniforms are completely different.
	I wish to ask the Minister some questions. I am sure that he will not have time to respond to all of them, so I ask him to write to me about the specific issues that I am about to raise. Can he confirm that all the C130s in operation have fire-retardant foam in the tanks? We all know about the disaster in which we lost all those servicemen. Long before that, Lockheed recommended to all the fleets around the world that fire-retardant foam be added to the tanks. Some countries added it; we did not, and one was shot down. It is too late for those who lost their loved ones, but I hope that the foam has been added to all the C130s on operations now.
	Many of us had the honour of watching the trooping of the colour on Saturday. Those taking part are not toy soldiers, but operational servicemenand women, these daysand we should all be very proud of them. When I served, many years ago, and trooped the colour, we saw very few service medalsa Northern Ireland medal and, perhaps, a United Nations one. On Saturday, there were servicemen and women who had more medals than some of the second world war veterans wear on Remembrance day. That is a tribute to how often our servicemen and women go on operations.
	Unusually for a former Foot Guard, I also wish to pay tribute to the Life Guards and the Household Cavalry, because they go on operations as well as carrying out their ceremonial duties. I was very moved by the Westminster Hall debate on Lance Corporal Compton last week. I have met Lance Corporal Compton and his burns are horrific. As I said, the House was shocked when I mentioned the fact that a bullet-proof vest is not fire protective. If a soldier is in a Scimitar that is hit, as Lance Corporal Compton was, and his colleagues are dying around him and he is alight, the last thing he needs is for the uniform that has been issued to protect him to burn. That is frightening. If nothing else comes from this debate today, I hope that we will now look at how we protect our servicemen and women in the field.

Andrew Murrison: I add my tribute to those that have been paid so warmly today to the fallen. It is a sad day today for British defence procurement, because the Minister has announcedsotto voce, if I may say sothe reduction in the number of T45s from the 1998 assumption of 12 to six. That is to be regretted.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) wants to increase defence spending. I certainly hope that there will be no more reductions in our capability. My plea to the Minister, if he is tempted to make any further cuts, is not to do it on a tribal basis. In the past, the temptation has been to divvy up any cuts on an Army, Navy and Air Force basis, and that will not do. That approach underpinned Delivering Security in a Changing World only a few years ago, but it does not serve the British defence capability overall. That was probably what the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) meant when he talked about salami-slicing.
	The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) expressed her understandable concerns about the T45 programme. She also asked about these old workhorses, the T42s. I remember them well, and they are now old ladies. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister thinks that, in the light of his announcement today, their service should be extended. The hon. Lady also rightly asked for reassurances about the Astute programme.
	While we are on the subject of the senior service, I should say how much I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) about the need for some progress on the decision on the technology transfer that will underpin our decision on the future of the JSF. If we are not going to get the JSF, we need to think very carefully about what we are going to do with our carriers.
	It is always a pleasure to listen to the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). He spent some time saying that he hoped the debate would not be partisan, and indeed up to that point it mostly had not been. He made an important point, and the debate has been fairly on the level today.
	We heard an excellent speech from the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith). He was absolutely rightthe procurement of training is every bit as important as the procurement of bits of kit and hardware. I shall come on to that in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) underlined the same point. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) made a linked point by saying that we cannot simply, in his words, turn skills on and off like a tap in relation to the defence industry. Of course, he is absolutely right.
	The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) gave a robust defence of the defence sector. He talked about Lancashire, and I suspect that Ghandi would be smiling down at this debate because, of course, he made a rather similar observation in relation to homespun all those years ago. The hon. Gentleman's point was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning).
	The defence industrial strategy recognises that the defence industry is a business like no other. There is a delicate balance to be struck between protectionism, which we have learned is in nobody's long-term interests but which characterises the defence industries of our competitors, and the free market instincts towards which most of us, on this side of the House at least, would naturally incline.
	France, Germany and the US protect their defence industries using a bewildering array of direct and indirect offsets and old-style state ownership. It is against that backdrop that we have to consider the way that successive Governments have dealt with the purchase of equipment for the British armed forces and the support that we offer our defence industry.
	Underpinning the DIS is the doctrine of appropriate sovereignty. Many would say that that means very limited sovereignty or none at all. The question is the extent to which we can or should endeavour to control the means to manufacture and service our own kit and to ensure that we control imported items of a sensitive nature. As equipment becomes more complex, that becomes increasingly difficult, but from SA80 A2 conversions to anything reliant on GPS we are hopelessly dependent on other countries. Even if bits of our kit were wholly organic, we could not possibly mount an effective fighting force on land, sea or air if, for whatever reason, defence manufacturers outwith the immediate control of the UK decided to stop playing with us or became obstructive.
	We should be realistic about the price tag that we put on the notion of appropriate sovereignty beyond highly specialised requirements relating to the independent nuclear deterrent, cryptology and the perverse desire of some to deny technology transfer. Of course, I have in mind the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde. Finally, but most importantly, we must not compromise on quality. Our troops are the best, but too often they have gamely put up with kit that frankly leaves a great deal to be desired.
	A number of right hon. and hon. Members have talked about the urgent operational requirement, notably my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex. It is generally accepted that the UOR has been a success. We do not know how much exactlyor even approximatelyhas been spent on it since there is something of a disparity between what has been announced by the Minister and his Department's outturn. Nevertheless, we know that it does not cover a raft of things that are consumed by war fighting and thus fall on a peacetime defence budget. That has been referred to in this debate.
	The UOR process anticipates operations of short duration. We are five years into Telic, and as we recalibrate our expectations for the length of our engagements in Afghanistan we need to think about what constitutes urgent and how it will be funded. If the military thought that the UOR was Father Christmas, they were mistaken. What the Treasury gives with one hand, it takes with the other. Equipment provided quickly for war that would have been procured electively in any case is subject to both clawback and, of course, accelerated senility. However, we should give credit where it is due, and the UOR has meant that off-shelf equipment has been purchased, removing the risk of project delays and overspends and allowing truly smart procurement with limited scope for the MOD to mess up in acquiring kit, a capacity that the right hon. Member for Walsall, South referred to in a non-partisan sort of way.
	Helicopters are bound to come into such a debate. The big story is the cut in the budget of 1.4 billion in 2004, which I am sure the Minister will accept, with the benefit of hindsight, was a mistake. If one talks to anybody in transit in a tracked or wheeled vehicle in Iraq and Afghanistan, they will say that they would rather be airborne. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) pointed that out. Helicopters have to be the means to get from A to B in hostile terrain, and following the announcement on Monday of a reconfiguration of British forces in Afghanistan and better force protection, I hope that we can look forward to optimising our air assets.
	May we have an update on where we are with regard to making the extra Merlins that we bought from the Danes fit for purpose? Will they have an operational traffic alert and collision avoidance system?
	Finally, I note that the Government called the debate Defence Procurement, the implication being that they wanted to talk about tanks, ships, and aircraft, but let us be clear about the most important piece of kit in the Minister's, or any future Minister's, armoury. It can never be reduced to an acronym; it will never be the CVS, FRES or JSF. It has been the same since King Alfred repelled the Danes at Ethandune and Bloody Point. It is our sailors, soldiers andthough it pains me to say so and, sadly Alfred did not have the benefit of them in the 9th centuryairmen. We must procure more of them, particularly for the infantry and pinch-point trades. We must reduce wastage of them, and we must ensure that their through-life capabilities are our first consideration.

Derek Twigg: May I, too, put on record my admiration for the bravery, sacrifice and professionalism of our armed forces, who do an absolutely amazing job? Of course, I send my condolences to the families of those who have lost their lives.
	This has been an interesting debate. Our armed forces are well served by the Members who are present; they take a great interest in, and think deeply about, the issues. I shall try to cover as many points as I can in the short time available to me. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) brought his great experience to the debate, and made a balanced contribution. He said that the Government had behaved extremely responsibly; that was an important point. He noted that defence procurement is difficult, complicated and problematic, and strongly argued the case for improvements to procurement. A great deal has been done on the issue so far. He demonstrated a great grasp of the trials and tribulations of procurement, and talked about balancing the budget.
	In an important contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) made a significant point about training. He has been a great champion of the defence training review programme and St. Athan, and he rightly raised the issue today. He wanted an update on progress, and I can tell him that discussions with the Metrix consortium are still ongoing on a range of issues. We will make an announcement as soon as we are in a position to do so. As he knows, package 2 has reverted to a conventional procurement process, managed in-house. Approval of an initial gate is expected soon. He also mentioned resettlement, and made the important point that the skills and experiences of our armed forces personnel allow them to get into the jobs market pretty quickly, but training is an important consideration, too.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) made a passionate speech about buying British and ensuring more British contractsideas that he has long championed. He mentioned the importance of the aerospace industry to the north-west. I count myself a Lancashire lad, so I agree that it is an important part of the world. He pointed out how proud we are of the British defence industry and its importance to maintaining links and partnerships, not just across the country but around the world. He made an important point about maintaining our skills base. He also asked about the Typhoon; we are continuing discussions with our partner nations and with the industry on tranche 3. Those discussions will continue throughout the year, and decisions will be taken as soon as possible.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) has a great deal of experience in defence, and particularly naval, matters. She showed her knowledge and commitment to defence through the range of issues that she talked about. She mentioned the Navy's importance to Plymouth. She has been a great champion for Plymouth during her time as a Member of Parliament, and she regularly lobbies Ministers on a range of issues. She referred to future carriers, the Astute programme, the joint shipbuilding venture, and the size of the royal naval fleet. The joint venture is not yet formed, but is due to form on 1 July. It is still the Ministry of Defence's intention to order seven Astute boats.
	It was asked why no decisions had been taken on the Future Service Combatant. It is in the early stage of concept design, and detailed criteria have not yet been defined. The number of ships required will be determined when the programme is more mature.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) made a very important speech, showing his ability and his detailed grasp of defence issues. He made a number of points, but he referred in particular to the defence industrial strategy. Industry is, and continues to be, in close dialogue with the Ministry of Defence on that issue. Industry is helping us to develop the DIS update, and it was represented at a very senior level only a few weeks ago.
	Several other Members made important points. My time is limited, but I shall briefly go through them. The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) made a very important point about Nimrod. In the time that I have I am unable to deal with his questions, but I assure him that we will write to him as soon as possible. The right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) has again shown his obvious grasp of detail because of his chairmanship of the Select Committee on Defence and his hard work on that. He raised a number of issues, as he has before.
	The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is very lively on the issues that he raises, and he raises them continually. I was quite interested by the point that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) made: basically, he said that when things went wrong with procurement under the Conservative Government, it was the experts' fault, but when they went wrong under this Government, it was Ministers' fault. That was a very interesting contrast.
	The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) made an important contribution on modernisation and future technology. Shropshire is a great county. My grandfather served in the King's Shropshire Light Infantry. The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) also made an important point about armoured vehicles, which I shall come on to, and the hon. Members for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) made impassioned speeches on issues that they are very keen to take further and explore.
	It is important to deal with several issues that several Members raised, rather than refer to each individual Member, but I shall say a few words first. Making sure that our servicemen and women have the equipment that they need when they need it is central to our defence effort. That theme emerged throughout the speeches today, and it is of course essential to our operational success. The Chief of the Defence Staff has said that the British forces across the board are better equipped than at any time during his 40 years of service. The servicemen and womenincluding some quartermasterswhom I meet on my operational visits to Iraq and Afghanistan, and in the UK, tell me that they have the best equipment that they have seen. However, we can always improve that, and there is no complacency.
	In the past three years, equipment to the value of 10 billion has been delivered to our armed forces. In addition to that expenditure, we have the urgent operational requirements process, which has been discussed in detail. It allows us to respond directly to feedback and requests from commanders on the front linea key point to makeand it boosts capability where and when it is needed. We have approved about 3.5 billion since operations began. The investment has transformed personal equipment, from specially designed boots to the 29 million spent on new enhanced body armour, and it has doubled the firepower of an eight-man infantry section. The investment, as we have heard, continues to enhance and upgrade our protected patrol vehicle fleet500 million since operation began.
	We have done a tremendous amount in the past two years to ensure that commanders have had a variety of vehicles at their disposal. However, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces made clear in his speech, in reality no single vehicle is suitable for every task. We must listen to the commanders' views on that.
	There was some confusion about vehicles, and in the few minutes that I have left I hope to clear that up. Members referred to a number of different vehicles that are available to operational commanders. Mastiff is a heavily armoured 6x6-wheel drive patrol vehicle, based on the US Cougar that American marines use. The MWMIK, known as Jackal, is a high-mobility weapons platform based on the Supacat vehicle. WMIK, which is part of the Land Rover family, is an open-topped vehicle that provides a better situational awareness and allows greater interaction with the local population.
	There are three types of Land Rover: the basic, the Snatch and the WMIK. On the question whether the WMIK will replace the Snatch, just as with the question of the Mastiff and the Bulldog, it is our intention that the arrival of the Jackal, which is the MWMIK, and the WMIK and the Ridgback, will substantially reduce the use of Snatch vehicles, other than in a number of limited roles and operational tasks that commanders want them for. However, it is important to make the point that we have available a range of vehicles which has been much increased in the past year or two.
	We are continually investing in programmes to increase the protection of our vehicles against all threats, including explosive devices. We are committed to the FRES programme and to deploying that capability as soon as we can. We are working hard to increase the level of helicopter support that we provide to commanders on operations. Since March last year, we have increased the number of helicopter, including Chinook, flying hours that we provide in Afghanistan by over 33 per cent. Driving through efficiency in our logistical support has been key to this process. The cost of high-end equipment is increasing, and we must have an equipment programme that is focused and sustainable.
	 It being Six o'clock, the motion lapsed, without Question put.

PARKING REGULATIONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Steve McCabe.]

Vincent Cable: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that is expressed in very broad terms on the Order Paper but I wish to narrow down to a series of practical problems in the sphere of parking enforcement and Government guidance.
	I am aware that there has been a substantial amount of activity in this field. In 2005-06, there was an excellent report by the Transport Committee. There has been a wave of Government regulation following the Traffic Management Act 2004. The Government have been very active in legislating in the past few years, and in a generally helpful and positive way, notably by introducing a single system of decriminalised penalties and by recognising that this is essentially a local function whereby authority should be devolved to local councils. In the process of introducing guidance, they have emphasised proportionality and more flexibility in how parking offences are dealt with. I am very positive about the way in which recent legislation has improved these matters.
	However, there are still problems. I have brought this debate to the House because I have been alarmed by the sheer volume of casework that I am gettingand other MPs are gettingabout parking offences, often on a staggering scale and involving real horror stories. Some of them can be dealt with through the individual appeals system that has been established and now works better. Some relate to parking policy, which is a matter for the local council rather than for me and for Ministers. However, there are a sufficient number of cases where it is clear that councils do not understand Government guidance or are not applying it. I felt it necessary to bring those to the Minister's attention and thought that the best way of doing so would be to cite one or particular examples that highlight the general problems.
	The first example relates to a constituent, a 76-year-old ladyshe did not wish her name to be publicised, so I will call her Mrs. Fwho was regularly attending West Middlesex University hospital, just outside my constituency in the borough of Hounslow, to care for her elderly husband, who had a terrible combination of stroke, prostate cancer and Alzheimer's. She was therefore spending a great deal of time with him and finding it difficult to afford the cost1 an hourof the hospital car park. One quiet Sunday morning, she parked in a nearby street, on a single yellow line. It was not a residential street, and there was no traffic, congestion or obstruction, but it turned out, although she was not aware of it, that she was committing a parking offence by parking within 10 m of a junction.
	In the afternoon, somebody ran into the ward, where she was feeding her husband, and told her that her car was being taken away. She ran out of the hospital and remonstrated with the driver of the truck, who represented a company called NPC, a contractor of Hounslow council. He said that he had his job to do, that the car had already been loaded, and that she should retrieve it from the pound. She went home by taxi, obtained a set of documents, as she had been instructed, got another taxi to the pound, 5 miles away in another part of west London, and sought to retrieve her car. It turned out that the staff of the company did not accept her documents. They said that one of the insurance documents was not what they required, although she was clearly the owner of the car and had the key, so she spent an hour and a half on the phone to an insurance company trying to retrieve information, which was eventually sent by fax.
	On that wet, cold evening, this 76-year-old lady was finally allowed to take her car for the payment of 250. A few weeks later, she got a 50 fine from the council, which she paid promptly because she had read the print at the bottom, which said that if people pursued an appeal, they were liable for cost.
	There were two aspects of the case that worried me and raised wider issues than the rather desperate circumstances of that particular lady on that particular day. The first is the use of clamping companies for the taking away of vehicles. I raise that because the Transport Committee, when it considered the matter two years ago, said:
	The removal of a vehicle by a local authority on the grounds that it is parked illegally is a very serious matter. The Chief Adjudicator...has concerns that vehicle removal may be incompatible with human rights legislation. The Government needs to examine this issue carefully.
	The Government did, and in their response to the Select Committee they said it was a matter for the courts to determine whether provision is compatible with convention rights, but they concluded:
	the view of the Department is that the powers which provide for the removal of vehicles in specified circumstances are proportionate in respect of balancing convention rights with the need to protect the safety of other road users and the general public interest.
	It is clear that in this case that was not so, and there are many other comparable cases in which there is not adequate protection concerning the removal of vehicles. Given the strong comments of the Select Committee, I wondered whether anything further could be done on the matter.
	A second aspect of the case is also troubling, and I have encountered it in a substantial number of other cases. It affected an elderly lady who had already suffered a great deal of financial loss, quite apart from her distress. She received a fine with a warning at the bottom that anyone proceeding with an appeal could be liable for costs. Subsequently, I took that up with Hounslow council and the Parking and Traffic Appeals ServicePATAS. They confirmed that, under Government legislation, the law prescribes what the notice must contain:
	One of the requirements is that the notice must 'indicate the nature of a parking adjudicator's power to award costs against any person appealing to him.'
	Clearly, that is legally correct, and shows what Government legislation requires. I did a little research as to what it means in practice, and I discovered from PATAS that of 51,484 parking appeals in 2006-07, there were only 30 successful appeals by local authorities, with an average penalty of 64. Those were in extreme cases of vexatious, persistent offenders.
	It was clearly never the intention that the warning about costs should be used to deter people from going to appeal. Indeed, the Select Committee said:
	We encourage parking adjudicators to be...alert to their powers to award costs. Where motorists have been unduly inconvenienced by poor council performance some financial award can help to alleviate the sense of injustice.
	The Committee saw it as a way of penalising councils, not individuals, but large numbers of people are being deterred because of the wording of what is currently presented as a Government regulation. I do not know whether there is any way in which that matter can be dealt with.
	My second case raises the question of discretion for local authorities in the case of offences. As an example, I have chosen a gentleman I shall call Mr. L, who also wished to remain anonymous. He was a throat cancer patient at the same hospital who went in for emergency examination, and chose to park in the same road, also on a Sunday morning, seduced by the same apparent attraction of what he thought was legal parking. He was fortunate in that his car was not taken away, but he discovered a month later that he had incurred a parking fine of 100. He was told that he had not paid the 50 fine of which he was originally notified. He was not aware of thatthese things get lost, and perhaps he was preoccupied with his conditionand he was faced with a 100 fine. He paid it for the same reason as the lady whom I mentioned: he was frightened by the warning about costs. I took the matter up with the local council and received the most extraordinary reply. It stated that it had sought legal advice, which was that:
	Parking Services cannot be selective when it comes to applying legislation, otherwise it could be accused of maladministration.
	In other words, it could not exercise discretion because that would imply acceptance that it had made a mistake. It therefore could not apologise, compensate or show discretion of any kind. That is clearly perverse and absolutely stupid.
	The Transport Committee acknowledged that that problem was quite widespread, stating:
	It is a serious failing that some local authorities are not properly discharging their responsibility to use discretion in considering representations. Councils must take this responsibility seriously in order that a just outcome is reached on each occasion.
	The Committee was aware of the prevalence of the problem, but there are many councils that do exercise discretion. The AA recently suggested that 50 per cent. of all informal representations were successful and charges were dropped. Westminster city council allows 50 per cent. of its cases to drop when representations are made, Camden a third and Lambeth 40 per cent.
	My borough of Richmond, which used to be quite harsh, adopted a policy some time ago that any first-time offender who presented reasonable evidence that the charge was unfair or unreasonable, or that there were mitigating circumstances, would have it waived. However, the council that I contacted appears to believe, and appears to have been persuaded legally, that it has no power to exercise discretion. I wonder whether guidance and advice from the Government is required, because some local authorities are behaving very strangely.
	My third example raises a different issue, and one that the Government should be aware of because it will land in their lap sooner or later. A Mr. Beauchamp was fined for parking on a yellow line. He would have been parking illegally, but he was disabled and had a disabled badge that legalised his parking. He was fined because of one of these new mobile CCTV trackers that parking departments are using, which I believe were authorised in recent regulations. The problem was that for technical reasons, the camera could not see the dashboard, where his disabled badge was displayed. The same is true in other cases.
	The local council was quick enough to realise that that was wrong and withdrew Mr. Beauchamp's fine, and I believe that it is now consulting other councils about the fundamental problem that the cameras, by their design, cannot pick up cases in which disabled badges are displayed. That approach will have to be dropped, or a large number of disabled people will pursue appeal cases or be fined without being aware that their position is protected. That, too, requires clarification from the Government.
	I wish to raise a couple of wider issues, not so much about how the clarification of Government guidance can help in dealing with individual cases but about how we can deal with dissatisfaction with local authorities' parking policies. In many ways, that is an issue for local democracy and should remain so. There are protections through the Audit Commission if councils mishandle funding and through the local government ombudsman if they mishandle process. None the less, there are questions that are raised repeatedly and do not appear to have had a satisfactory outcome.
	There is massive dissent about controlled parking zones in many urban boroughs such as mine. Councils are often caught in the middle, with some residents demanding controlled zones and others opposing them. There are bitter arguments about whether the procedures have been followed correctly and whether particular roads voted for or against the zone. It would help the residents and the council if there were a court of appeal of some kindthe equivalent of a planning inspectorthat could examine such cases impartially. We could call it a parking ombudsman. I believe that the Select Committee considered that and decided against it, and the Government have not responded to the suggestion, but there may be scope for doing something of that kind.
	The argument for doing so is reinforced by the fact that there are many other sources of dissatisfaction with local schemes. Another example is that people widely assume that councils' local contracts incorporate incentives to increase the number of fines. That may or may not be true, although the Committee was damning about those instances where it was. It said that incentive schemes were utterly misplaced and the Government agreed.
	The problem is that nobody knows whether there are incentive schemes or not, because councils are not required by law to publish the details of their contracts or the annual accounts of their parking policies. Doing so is good practice and the Government encourage it, but there is no reason whatever why councils should disclose information about levels of fines or the process by which they are imposed. That gives added support to the principle that there should be a modest arrangement whereby a third partywe could call it an ombudsman or a point of referencewould perform a function that the local government ombudsman and the Audit Commission currently cannot perform. I leave the Minister with the thought of whether the Government have an open mind about that.
	The final issue that I want to raise with the Minister relates partly to her Department and partly to the wider constitutional affairs issues concerning bailiffs. It is becoming increasingly clear from my casework that large numbers of councils are issuing bailiffs orders at a fairly early stage in the process when people fail to pay their parking fines. Some people break the law, treating it in a very cavalier way, and they deserve to be sanctioned. However, there are many reasons why people do not pay fines, including the misdirection of mail, moving house, living in multi-occupancy flats and so on. In my experience, such people are increasingly encountering bailiffs.
	One extreme case involved a gentleman from my constituency, a Mr. Cohen, who lived next door to a Travellers site. Several of the Travellers hit on the ingenious idea of registering their cars in the name of Mr. Cohen's property, which resulted in a large number of fines arriving at his address. He did not pay them, of course, because the vehicles concerned were not his, but bailiffs started arriving, on several occasions early in the morning and in one case in the middle of the night.
	Now that bailiffs have additional powers under Government legislation, which I believe involves the limited use of force, the phenomenon has become extremely alarming. Has the Minister, in consultation with her colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, considered whether there should be some limitation on the use of bailiff powers in the case of what are, after all, minor infractions of the law, because of the potential difficulty that it is creating?

Rosie Winterton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing this debate. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will be aware of what a concern the issue is to members of the public, and we all have quite large postbags on it.
	I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the Government's direction of travel, if I may use that phrase, and for the Government's desire to see parking policies used positively. Good parking policies should be about helping to keep traffic moving, so that people can get to work, to the shops and to businesses, but not obstruct, for example, emergency vehicles. As he said, since 1991, there has been a move towards local authorities enforcing their own parking enforcement policies and not being reliant on the police. As he also said, the issue is also about recognising the part that local democracy plays in ensuring that councils are accountable to their electorate for making their parking enforcement policies, as well as for how they are run. We now have about 255 English authorities, including all those in London, taking on this responsibility.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to say that central Government need to get the framework of regulations and guidance right. He is also right to say that local authorities need to adopt policies that are acceptable to their population and meet the needs of their area, and to enforce them fairly, reasonably and legally. Councillors, who are accountable to the local electorate, should ensure that that is done, and will have to explain themselves through the electoral process if there is dissatisfaction with the way in which a council is carrying out its parking policy.
	The hon. Gentleman raised a number of points, which I shall cover in a moment. He did not mention clamping on private land directly, but it has been a matter of great concern to me as a constituency MPI have been pursuing the matter for about 10 years. As a Minister, I am having discussions with the Home Office to determine what else we need to do about it. In our recent guidance, we said that councils should use clamping as a last resort. The hon. Gentleman mentioned some cases in his constituency, and I shall deal with the issues that he raised in a moment. When a parked vehicle is causing an obstruction, clamping it is not particularly helpful, as it reinforces the obstruction rather than removing it. To be fair, some councils are increasing their use of towing away as an option, in order to remove such obstructions. They need to get the balance right between the two options for dealing with those difficulties. It is up to the councils to decide how they do that, but it is important that they should be sensitive to the implications involved.
	The hon. Gentleman made a point about whether pursuing an appeal would render someone liable to costs, and he was right to say that we need absolute clarity on this. Any appeal is free, and costs would be payable only if the appeal were found to be frivolous or vexatious. I will look into whether that guidance is clear enough, however. In March, we introduced regulations to create a greater degree of consistency in the appeals process, and we have issued guidance to local authorities on the wording on penalty charge notices. I will look into how they are now being phrased and come back to the hon. Gentleman to tell him how we are making that point clear.
	On the issue of cameras and disabled badges, cameras have been used in London since about 2000 under local legislation. The Department's statutory guidance states that cameras should not be used where they would be unable to detect permits or badges. I can give the hon. Gentleman further information on that, if it would be helpful. We recognise that that could be a problem, which is why we have phrased our guidance as we have.
	With regard to the possible confusion over whether a council is able to exercise discretion, the issue is again covered in the Department's statutory guidance. Councils are able to exercise discretion; indeed, I should emphasise that authorities have complete freedom to cancel a penalty charge notice at any stage in the process. Our statutory guidance has reminded councils of that.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned that his constituents had had their vehicles towed away, so let me clarify that this happens where there is an obstruction. In the particular case he mentioned, he said that it happened too close to a junction on the main road. If vehicles are obstructing the highway, however, councils need the power to remove them. If the hon. Gentleman's constituent felt that this action was unfair, he could have appealed against the decision.
	When it comes to dissatisfaction over controlled parking, as constituency MPs we are well aware that there are always two sides to a dispute and we can sometimes get caught in the middle, but the council must consult on a proposed controlled parking zone. If people object, the local authority must consider holding an inquiry, which will give people the opportunity to explain why they think the proposal would present difficulties or, on the other side, why they support it.
	Let me deal finally with some of the hon. Gentleman's points about transparency and whether people understand how a council's parking policies are carried out, what it does with the revenue and so forth. Part of the guidance makes a strong recommendation that local authorities should publish an annual report of their parking policies. The hon. Gentleman rightly went through all the different processes and means by which members of the public can challenge councilsfrom making an appeal and looking at the accounts to see how the money has been spent right through to going to the ombudsman.
	We have seen quite of lot of press coverage about incentives in contracts. The statutory guidance makes it very clear that we believe unreasonable incentives should be discouraged. The incentives should be based on delivering transport objectives, such as keeping traffic moving and ensuring that there are no obstructions rather than on factors such as over-zealous parking attendants, who are resented by people. There has been a lot of press coverage of such incentives, but actual evidence has, frankly, not been so forthcoming.
	I will certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments about bailiffs to the Ministry of Justice and I will get back to him with any response.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, this is a very controversial issue. We have tried to ensure that we have policies that allow central Government to look at best practice and advise through statutory guidance. It is up to us to continue to work with local authorities to ensure that policies are in place that meet our transport objectives while also emphasising that local councils are accountable to their electorates for the policies they pursue.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at half-past Six o'clock.